Williams v. State

527 So. 2d 938, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1531, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2810, 1988 WL 67276
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Williams v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1816
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 30, 1988·No. No. 87-293·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The state concedes that the trial court’s sentencing order directing appellant to pay restitution “as determined by probation and parole” violates McCaskill v. State, 520 So.2d 664 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) and Ballance v. State, 447 So.2d 974 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). The state also concedes that prior to imposing court costs, the lower court failed to make a determination of appellant’s ability to pay, thereby violation Mays v. State, 519 So.2d 618 (Fla.1988).

This case is remanded to the trial court with directions that appellant be resen-tenced in accordance with the foregoing authority.

THOMPSON, NIMMONS and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.

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

Williams v. State, 527 So. 2d 938, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1531, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2810, 1988 WL 67276 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

527 So. 2d 938 (Williams v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ballance v. State
447 So. 2d 974 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
Mays v. State
519 So. 2d 618 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1988)
McCaskill v. State
520 So. 2d 664 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)