Talbert v. State
362 So. 2d 172, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 16609
Opinion
After reviewing the briefs and record on appeal, we find the appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error; however, the provision in appellant’s sentence that he be imprisoned “at hard labor” is improper. Ussery v. State, 350 So.2d 839 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1977); McDonald v. State, 321 So.2d 453 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1975). Accordingly, this ease is REMANDED for the purpose of striking the language “at hard labor” from the sentencing order; it is otherwise affirmed. Appellant need not be present for this purpose.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Talbert v. State, 362 So. 2d 172, 1978 Fla. App. LEXIS 16609 (Fla. Ct. App. 1978).
362 So. 2d 172 (Talbert v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
McDonald v. State
321 So. 2d 453 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1975)
Ussery v. State
350 So. 2d 839 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1977)