JIMMY MILLOWAY, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1990-10-16
No. 90-289
Before HUBBART, COPE and GERSTEN, JJ.
567 So. 2d 1073 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1990) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

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.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Chambers v. State, 582 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
    …tion. Appellant contends, and the State concedes, that portions of the probation order must be stricken because they impermissi-bly delegate the manner of payment of the restitution to be determined by the probation officer. See Milloway v. State, 567 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Williams v. State, 556 So. 2d 799 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Accordingly, we reverse and remand appellant’s sentence with directions that those portions of the probation order which delegate the manner of payment of restitution be st…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw