Case ID: so2d_352/html/0936-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Dwight Eugene HALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    Nos. 77-603 and 77-604.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    Dec. 7, 1977.
    Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, W. C. McLain, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, and Howard L. Dimmig, II, Legal Intern, Tallahassee, for appellant.
    Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William I. Munsey, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

The orders revoking appellant’s probation and sentencing him to two consecutive ten year terms are affirmed, but these cases are remanded for resentencing of appellant. The present sentences do not specifically set forth the period of credit time to be allowed as required by Section 921.161(1), Florida Statutes (1975); Brooks v. State, 349 So.2d 794 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). Moreover, the phrase “at hard labor” in the sentences is improper. Brooks v. State, supra. The appellant does not have to be present at re-sentencing.

GRIMES, Acting C. J., and SCHEB and DANAHY, JJ., concur.