WILLARD DANA WARREN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Florida appellate court affirmed a heroin possession conviction but remanded to correct clerical errors in the sentencing order, specifically striking the improper "at hard labor" language and clarifying commitment to the Department of Offender Rehabilitation rather than county jail.
A sentence imposing imprisonment "at hard labor" is improper under Florida law because no statute authorizes such a sentence, and clerical errors in the judgment must be corrected on remand.
[1] Imprisonment "at hard labor" cannot be imposed as a sentence in Florida because no statute authorizes such a sentence.
Previewing 1 of 1 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 state statute provides for its imposition as a sentence for any offense.”
Court's explanation of why the hard labor language must be struck from the sentence.
Appellant was convicted of possession of heroin and committed to the custody of the Florida Department of Offender Rehabilitation, but the sentencing …
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 Statutory Authority For Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
After reviewing the briefs and record on appeal, we find the appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error; therefore the judgment appealed is affirmed.
The two points raised by appellant are the propriety of the appellant’s sentence to confinement at hard labor and the allegation that appellant was sentenced to the county jail for a term of eighteen months incarceration.
While it appears from the record that appellant was convicted of possession of heroin and properly committed to the custody of the Florida Department of Offender Rehabilitation, the transcript of the sentencing hearing and the judgment and sentence form indicate that a clerical error was made in indicating appellant’s proper place of incarceration.
To be imprisoned “at hard labor” is improper because no existing state statute provides for its imposition as a sentence for any offense. Speller v. State, 305 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974).
Remanded for the purpose of striking the language “at hard labor” and for correcting sentence to indicate commitment to the Department of Offender Rehabilitation; otherwise, appellant’s conviction is affirmed.
Appellant need not be present for this purpose.
HOBSON, Acting C. J., and SCHEB and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bankers & Shippers Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. AIA Insulation Indus., Inc., 390 So. 2d 734 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…tractor did not have the option of filing a claim of lien against the owner’s property. 340 So. 2d at 1196. see also: Goldberger v. United Plumbing & Heating Inc., 358 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Alpha Electric Supply, Inc. v. F. Feaster, Inc., 358 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). Since the prime contractor, Inland, had furnished a proper payment and performance bond at the commencement of this job, subcontractors were not entitled to enforce mechanics liens against Aristar or the real property involved.…
-
Gorman Co. OF Fort Lauderdale, Inc. v. Frank Maio Gen. Contractor, Inc., 438 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…So. 2d 891 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). A subcontractor is not an indispensable party to a supplier’s action against the principal and surety under a bond required by section 713.23(l)(g) of the Mechanics Lien Law. Alpha Electric Supply v. F. Feaster, Inc., 358 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). It has also been held that a general contractor is not an indispensable party to an action by a subcontractor against an owner under the same statutory scheme. Bybee v. Stearn, 95 So. 2d 529 (Fla.1957). Petitioner contends that t…
-
Kendrick A. Jones v. W. L. Cobb Constr. Co., Inc., 371 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)…ince preclusion of a claimant’s lien right is no insignificant matter. Hunt Truck Sales and Service, Inc. v. Bonanza Construction, Inc. 353 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) at 613. This court stated in Alpha Electric Supply, Inc. v. F. Feaster, Inc., 358 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978): [*552] Thus, proof of the existence of a payment bond meeting all of the conditions of Section 713.23, Florida Statutes (1975) is a complete defense to a suit We believe the defense was prematurely raised and should be asserted a…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Speller v. State, 305 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)