From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brooks v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Sep 2, 1977
349 So. 2d 794 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

Opinion

No. 77-272.

September 2, 1977.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Pasco County, Ray E. Ulmer, Jr., J.

Jack O. Johnson, Public Defender, Bartow, and Stephen Lindsey Gorman, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Mary Jo M. Gallay, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.


The judgment appealed from is affirmed, but this case is remanded for resentencing of appellant. The present sentence does not specifically set forth the period of credit time to be allowed as required by Section 921.161(1), Florida Statutes (1975); Smith v. State, 310 So.2d 770 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). Moreover the phrase "at hard labor" in the sentence is improper. McDonald v. State, 321 So.2d 453 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). The appellant does not have to be present at resentencing.

HOBSON, Acting C.J., and McNULTY and SCHEB, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Brooks v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Sep 2, 1977
349 So. 2d 794 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)
Case details for

Brooks v. State

Case Details

Full title:VICTOR L. BROOKS, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Sep 2, 1977

Citations

349 So. 2d 794 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1977)

Citing Cases

Zahn v. State

The present sentence does not specify the amount of credit appellant is to receive for time served as Section…

Welborn v. State

However we agree with appellant that it was improper for the trial court to imprison him at hard labor.…