Milloway v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Milloway v. State

567 So. 2d 1073, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 7986, 1990 WL 154860

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 16, 1990

DocketNo. 90-289

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 567 So. 2d 1073 (Milloway 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

Milloway v. State, 567 So. 2d 1073, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 7986, 1990 WL 154860 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The final judgment of conviction and sentence under review is affirmed with two modifications: (1) the amount of restitution ordered by the trial court in the probation order is hereby corrected so as to conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement at the sentencing hearing below, to wit: $3,294.14, Williams v. State, 525 So.2d 458, 460 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); A.R. v. State, 475 So.2d 308, 309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Brown v. State, 423 So.2d 599, 600 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); and (2) the directive in the probation order which delegates to the probation officer the determination of the mode and manner of payment of restitution, fees, and costs by the defendant is stricken, as only the trial court may direct a payment schedule for such restitution, fees, and costs. Williams v. State, 556 So.2d 799, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).

Affirmed as modified.

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

PER CURIAM.

The final judgment of conviction and sentence under review is affirmed with two modifications: (1) the amount of restitution ordered by the trial court in the probation order is hereby corrected so as to conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement at the sentencing hearing below, to wit: $3,294.14, Williams v. State, 525 So.2d 458, 460 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); A.R. v. State, 475 So.2d 308, 309 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Brown v. State, 423 So.2d 599, 600 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); and (2) the directive in the probation order which delegates to the probation officer the determination of the mode and manner of payment of restitution, fees, and costs by the defendant is stricken, as only the trial court may direct a payment schedule for such restitution, fees, and costs. Williams v. State, 556 So.2d 799, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).

Affirmed as modified.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

567 So. 2d 1073, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 7986, 1990 WL 154860, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/milloway-v-state-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack