Conner v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Conner v. State

685 So. 2d 65, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 13237, 1996 WL 727141

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Conner v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 6601 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 19, 1996·No. No. 95-2133·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges an order imposing restitution. We strike that portion of the [66]*66order by which the appellant was ordered to pay $2142.35 for the costs of removing illegally dumped tires from private property. We do so because restitution for this pui’pose was neither ordered within sixty days of sentencing nor agreed to in the appellant’s negotiated plea. See State v. Sanderson, 625 So.2d 471 (Fla.1993).

The order is othenvise affirmed.

ALLEN, WEBSTER and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges an order imposing restitution. We strike that portion of the [66]*66order by which the appellant was ordered to pay $2142.35 for the costs of removing illegally dumped tires from private property. We do so because restitution for this pui’pose was neither ordered within sixty days of sentencing nor agreed to in the appellant’s negotiated plea. See State v. Sanderson, 625 So.2d 471 (Fla.1993).

The order is othenvise affirmed.

ALLEN, WEBSTER and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.

Conner v. State, 685 So. 2d 65, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 13237, 1996 WL 727141 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

685 So. 2d 65 (Conner v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related