Ashlock v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ashlock v. State

632 So. 2d 213, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 1204, 1994 WL 46924

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 18, 1994

DocketNo. 92-2494

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 632 So. 2d 213 (Ashlock v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ashlock v. State, 632 So. 2d 213, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 1204, 1994 WL 46924 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

W. SHARP, Judge.

Ashlock appeals from an order of restitution entered against him in a criminal case. [214]*214He pled nolo contendere to grand theft (§ 812.014), with the understanding restitution would be ordered, and was placed on probation. After a hearing, the court ordered Ashlock to pay a total of $1,097.25 in restitution and that he should pay as much as scheduled by his probation officer during his probation. We .reverse the order and remand for further proceedings.

At the restitution hearing, the state failed to establish any immediate ability on the part of Ashlock to pay the total restitution order, or any minimal installments. In Boss v. State, 613 So.2d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993), we held that restitution orders can be entered based on the defendant’s future financial resources, within a specified period or in specified installments. However, the court, not the probation officer, must set the payment schedule. § 775.089(3)(c), Fla.Stat. (1991).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

COBB and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

W. SHARP, Judge.

Ashlock appeals from an order of restitution entered against him in a criminal case. [214]*214He pled nolo contendere to grand theft (§ 812.014), with the understanding restitution would be ordered, and was placed on probation. After a hearing, the court ordered Ashlock to pay a total of $1,097.25 in restitution and that he should pay as much as scheduled by his probation officer during his probation. We .reverse the order and remand for further proceedings.

At the restitution hearing, the state failed to establish any immediate ability on the part of Ashlock to pay the total restitution order, or any minimal installments. In Boss v. State, 613 So.2d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993), we held that restitution orders can be entered based on the defendant’s future financial resources, within a specified period or in specified installments. However, the court, not the probation officer, must set the payment schedule. § 775.089(3)(c), Fla.Stat. (1991).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

COBB and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

632 So. 2d 213, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 1204, 1994 WL 46924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ashlock-v-state-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

W. SHARP, Judge.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack