ROBERT L. EDGECOMB
v.
STATE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A sentence provision requiring imprisonment 'at hard labor' is unauthorized surplusage and must be stricken from a sentence for armed robbery.
[1] A condition of imprisonment "at hard labor" constitutes an illegal sentence when the crimes were committed after 1970, as no Florida statute authorizes such a sentence.
[2] Unauthorized surplusage in a sentence, such as a provision for imprisonment "at hard labor," should be stricken from the judgment and sentence.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“To be imprisoned 'at hard labor' is improper because no existing Florida statute provides for imprisonment at hard labor as a sentence for any crime.”
Corsey v. State, supporting the proposition that no statute authorizes hard labor sentences
Robert L. Edgecomb was sentenced to life imprisonment for armed robbery in violation of section 812.13, Florida Statutes, and his sentence included a …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Illegal Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed November 12, 2020. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D20-1427 Lower Tribunal No. 76-7979
________________
Robert L. Edgecomb,
Petitioner,
vs.
The State of Florida,
Respondent.
A Case of Original Jurisdiction – Habeas Corpus. Robert L. Edgecomb, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Richard L. Polin, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent. Before LOGUE, LINDSEY, and MILLER, JJ. MILLER, J.
By petition for writ of habeas corpus, petitioner, Robert L. Edgecomb,
challenges the validity of his sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon him for the offense of armed robbery, in violation of section 812.13, Florida Statutes.1
Although we deny relief, as Edgecomb is prohibited from filing any pro se pleadings in the lower tribunal, we strike the unauthorized surplusage that petitioner be confined “at hard labor.” See Sheppard v. State, 45 So. 3d 816, 817 (Fla. 3d DCA
2010) (“[W]e reverse the ‘hard labor’ condition of the defendant’s life sentence for second degree murder and remand with instructions that the lower court strike this condition.”); Shade v. State, 925 So. 2d 453, 453 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (“Where a defendant commits his crimes after 1970, a hard labor condition constitutes an illegal sentence. Consequently, Appellant is entitled to have the condition of hard labor stricken from his sentence.”) (citations omitted); Manning v. State, 365 So. 2d 224,
224 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) (“[T]he provision in [the] sentence that [the defendant] be imprisoned ‘at hard labor’ is not authorized by law, and being merely surplusage,
this provision is hereby stricken.”) (citation omitted); see also Deering v. State, 988
So. 2d 1237, 1238 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (“[T]he trial court improperly denied [the defendant’s] claim that the statutes in effect at the time of his sentencing did not authorize the imposition of a sentence ‘at hard labor.’”) (citations omitted); Corsey
v. State, 349 So. 2d 738, 738 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) (“To be imprisoned ‘at hard labor’ is improper because no existing Florida statute provides for imprisonment at hard labor as a sentence for any crime.”) (citation omitted); McDonald v. State, 321 So. 2d 453, 458 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975) (“The inclusion of the provision in the judgment and sentence under review th[a]t appellant ‘be imprisoned at Hard Labor’ is improper because no existing Florida statute provides for imprisonment at hard labor as a sentence for any offense.”); Speller v. State, 305 So. 2d 231, 232 (Fla. 2d DCA
1974) (“[S]ince the repeal of s[ection] 922.05(2), F[lorida] S[tatutes,] there is no authority for imposing a sentence ‘at hard labor.’”).
Petition denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Speller v. State, 305 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- Corsey v. State, 349 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Manning v. State, 365 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Shade v. State, 925 So. 2d 453 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Sheppard v. State, 45 So. 3d 816 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)