Guinn v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Guinn v. State

652 So. 2d 902, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 2814, 1995 WL 119119

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 22, 1995

DocketNo. 94-00992

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 652 So. 2d 902 (Guinn 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

Guinn v. State, 652 So. 2d 902, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 2814, 1995 WL 119119 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

James Anthony Guinn appeals orders of restitution the trial court entered in four cases. We affirm that portion of each order setting forth the amount of restitution. However, Guinn correctly argues and the state concedes that the trial court improperly delegated to the probation officer the determination of Guinn’s payment schedule. See Briggs v. State, 647 So.2d 182 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Accordingly, we reverse that portion of each order delegating to the probation officer the determination of the restitution payment schedule and remand to the trial court to establish the payment schedule and to enter the appropriate order. We otherwise affirm the judgments and sentences.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded for entry of new orders directing the payment schedule of restitution.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and PARKER and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

James Anthony Guinn appeals orders of restitution the trial court entered in four cases. We affirm that portion of each order setting forth the amount of restitution. However, Guinn correctly argues and the state concedes that the trial court improperly delegated to the probation officer the determination of Guinn’s payment schedule. See Briggs v. State, 647 So.2d 182 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Accordingly, we reverse that portion of each order delegating to the probation officer the determination of the restitution payment schedule and remand to the trial court to establish the payment schedule and to enter the appropriate order. We otherwise affirm the judgments and sentences.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded for entry of new orders directing the payment schedule of restitution.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and PARKER and LAZZARA, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

652 So. 2d 902, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 2814, 1995 WL 119119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guinn-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack