Martin v. State

652 So. 2d 506, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 3239, 1995 WL 132253
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMarch 29, 1995
DocketNo. 94-1142
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 652 So. 2d 506 (Martin 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
Martin v. State, 652 So. 2d 506, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 3239, 1995 WL 132253 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s conviction for tampering with evidence, but reverse the aspect of the special condition of probation in which the court provided that the payment of a $3,000 fine would be on a schedule to be determined by appellant’s probation officer. We remand for the trial court to determine the payment schedule, since the court cannot delegate its authority to determine such a schedule to the probation officer. See section 775.083(2), Florida Statutes (1993) and Ashlock v. State, 632 So.2d 213 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).

DELL, C.J., and WARNER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Trotman v. State
652 So. 2d 506 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
652 So. 2d 506, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 3239, 1995 WL 132253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-state-fladistctapp-1995.