Tucker v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tucker v. State

368 So. 2d 632, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14607

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Tucker v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 388 So. 2d 6 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided March 14, 1979·No. No. 78-914·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

After reviewing the briefs and record on appeal, we find the appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error; therefore, the judgment appealed is affirmed.

The only point which merits discussion is the propriety of the appellant’s sentence to confinement “at hard labor.” To be imprisoned “at hard labor” is improper because no existing state statute provides for its imposition as a sentence for any offense. Speller v. State, 305 So.2d 231 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974).

Remanded for the purpose of striking the language “at hard labor” from the sentencing order; otherwise affirmed. Appellant need not be present for this purpose.

HOBSON, A. C. J., and SCHEB and RYDER, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

After reviewing the briefs and record on appeal, we find the appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error; therefore, the judgment appealed is affirmed.

The only point which merits discussion is the propriety of the appellant’s sentence to confinement “at hard labor.” To be imprisoned “at hard labor” is improper because no existing state statute provides for its imposition as a sentence for any offense. Speller v. State, 305 So.2d 231 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974).

Remanded for the purpose of striking the language “at hard labor” from the sentencing order; otherwise affirmed. Appellant need not be present for this purpose.

HOBSON, A. C. J., and SCHEB and RYDER, JJ., concur.

Tucker v. State, 368 So. 2d 632, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14607 (Fla. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

368 So. 2d 632 (Tucker v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related