Martin v. State

652 So. 2d 506, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 3239, 1995 WL 132253

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.