TIMOTHY ISAAC WILSON, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
TIMOTHY ISAAC WILSON, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
350 So. 2d 561
Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1977)
Caution
Cited by 6 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
The judgment of the trial court 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 sentence imprisons appellant “at hard labor” for which there is no statutory authority. Speller v. State, 305 So. 2d 231 (Fla.2d DCA 1974). The appellant does not have to be present at re-sentencing.
SCHEB, Acting C. J., and OTT and RYDER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Chapman, 415 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…la.Stat. (1981). Any insurance policy purporting to provide security in accordance with Florida’s Automobile Reparations Reform Act is to be enforced as if it were in compliance with the act, irrespective of its actual terms. Andriakos v. Cavanaugh, 350 So. 2d 561 (Fla.2d DCA 1977). If a government-owned vehicle is a “motor vehicle” within the scope of Florida’s Automobile Reparations Reform Act, then the State Farm policy exclusion that excluded insureds from coverage while they were in government vehicles w…
-
Reeves v. Merlin Miller & State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 418 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…if it were in express compliance with the statutory requirements. See, e.g., Mullis v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 252 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 1971); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins, Co. v. Chapman, 415 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Andriakos v. Cavanaugh, 350 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). The statutes requiring Miller to have motor vehicle liability coverage did not provide for an exclusion for obligations cognizable under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Therefore, that exclusion is contrary to the legislative publi…
-
Gibson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 378 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)…ives injuries while a passenger in his insured automobile and the driver of the automobile is an insured under the policy definition as a permissive user. In support of this contention, they rely entirely upon our decision in Andriakos v. Cavanaugh, 350 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), cert. denied, 362 So. 2d 1057 (Fla.1978). That case, however, is distinguishable on its facts.1 Andri-akos was test driving an automobile owned by and with the permission of Cavanaugh when he was involved in an accident in which…
Authorities Cited
- Speller v. State, 305 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)
- Smith v. State, 310 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Odom v. State, 310 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)