Martin v. State
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.
Opinion
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).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
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.