Case Name: Samuel PEARSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1977-12-28
Citations: 354 So. 2d 97
Docket Number: Nos. 77-908, 77-909 & 77-845 consolidated
Parties: Samuel PEARSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: SCHEB, Acting C. J., and OTT and DAN-AHY, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 354
Pages: 97–98

Head Matter:
Samuel PEARSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Nos. 77-908, 77-909 & 77-845 consolidated.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Dec. 28, 1977.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 14, 1978.
Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, Bar-tow, and Stephen 0. Rushing, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corees, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Pursuant to plea negotiations appellant was sentenced to life probation for robbery (case number 76-6325, appeal number 77-845), fifteen years in prison for another count of robbery (case number 76-7080, appeal number 77-908), and five years in prison for giving false information to obtain unemployment compensation (circuit court number 76-5178, appeal number 77-909). All three sentences are to be served concurrently.
In this appeal appellant argues that the trial court erred by simultaneously placing him on probation and sentencing him to prison. However, we interpret the sentences so that appellant's life probation does not commence until he is released from prison on the other two charges.
As so interpreted, the judgments appealed from are affirmed, but these cases are remanded for resentencing of appellant. The sentences in circuit court case numbers 76-7080 (appeal number 77-908) and 76-5178.(appeal number 77-909) 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 resentencing.
SCHEB, Acting C. J., and OTT and DAN-AHY, JJ., concur.