BRIAN PRUITT, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
BRIAN PRUITT, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
363 So. 2d 611
Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1978)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
After reviewing the briefs and record on appeal, we find appellant has failed to demonstrate any reversible error; therefore, the judgment appealed is affirmed. The judgment and sentence of the court, while indicating the appellant was to receive credit for all time served in jail, does not specifically set forth the period of credit time to be allowed as required by Section 921.161(1) Florida Statutes. Smith v. State, 310 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975).
Remanded for correction of the sentence; otherwise affirmed. Appellant need not be present for this purpose.
GRIMES, C. J., and HOBSON and SCHEB, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wasserman v. State, 446 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…G. v. State, 338 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). The state concedes that the sentencing order must be corrected so as to reflect the specific amount of credit time to which the defendant is entitled. § 921.161(1), Fla. Stat. (1981); Pruitt v. State, 363 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). Accordingly, we remand for that purpose. The conviction is affirmed; the sentence is remanded for correction.…
-
Vitaliano E. Napoles v. State, 470 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…, except for this technical error, and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to modify the sentence in compliance with the above statute. The defendant need not be present in court for this correction of sentence. Pruitt v. State, 363 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); James v. State, 364 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). Affirmed as modified and remanded.…
Authorities Cited
- Smith v. State, 310 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Odom v. State, 310 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)