Holman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Holman v. State

809 So. 2d 63, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 1274, 2002 WL 191566

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 8, 2002

DocketNo. 5D01-1614

StatusPublished

This text of 809 So. 2d 63 (Holman 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

Holman v. State, 809 So. 2d 63, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 1274, 2002 WL 191566 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

HARRIS, J.

Holman pled “straight up” to obtaining property by false pretense. At sentencing, she was given prison time because the trial court determined that it “was not really looking towards probation and restitution as its primary road that we’re going to travel.” Five days later, well within the authorized period, the court ordered restitution and reduced the restitution to judgment. The sole issue on appeal is whether the court’s restitution order is contrary to his statement at sentencing and thus must be stricken. We find no conflict and affirm.

The court made it clear that it did not intend to sentence appellant to probation with a condition of repaying restitution. It did not. Instead, she was sentenced to prison without probation and a judgment was rendered for her restitution obligation. There is no inconsistency.

AFFIRMED.

SAWAYA and ORFINGER, R.B., JJ., concur.

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

HARRIS, J.

Holman pled “straight up” to obtaining property by false pretense. At sentencing, she was given prison time because the trial court determined that it “was not really looking towards probation and restitution as its primary road that we’re going to travel.” Five days later, well within the authorized period, the court ordered restitution and reduced the restitution to judgment. The sole issue on appeal is whether the court’s restitution order is contrary to his statement at sentencing and thus must be stricken. We find no conflict and affirm.

The court made it clear that it did not intend to sentence appellant to probation with a condition of repaying restitution. It did not. Instead, she was sentenced to prison without probation and a judgment was rendered for her restitution obligation. There is no inconsistency.

AFFIRMED.

SAWAYA and ORFINGER, R.B., JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

809 So. 2d 63, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 1274, 2002 WL 191566, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holman-v-state-fladistctapp-2002.