RICHARD MARTIN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
RICHARD MARTIN, APPELLANT,
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
652 So. 2d 506
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1995)
Caution
Cited by 11 cases
Opinion of the Court
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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Norton v. State, 709 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 1997)…vicinity, he could not find anyone who sold tires to defendant. The detective’s conclusion is predicated on information he secured from someone else, and, therefore, constitutes hearsay to which no exception was offered. See, e.g., Trotman v. State, 652 So. 2d 506, 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (re-, versing conviction where police officer offered hearsay testimony as to what non-testifying, unidentified witness had told him about defendant’s involvement in crime); Bell v. State, 595 So. 2d 232, 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 199…
-
Schaffer v. State, 769 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…” [f.o.] 674 So. 2d at 118-119; see also Tumblin v. State, 747 So. 2d 442, 444 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (trial court improperly allowed officer to testify that he arrested the defendant after talking with a non-testifying eye-witness); Trotman v. State, 652 So. 2d 506, 507 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (trial court erred in permitting officer to testify that he went to the location of crime and arrested defendant after speaking to unidentified, non-testifying witness). Even more recently in Keen v. State, No. SC88802, 2000…
-
Andres v. State, 254 So. 3d 283 (Fla. 2018)…icinity, he could not find anyone who sold tires to defendant. The detective's conclusion is predicated on information he secured from someone else, and, therefore, constitutes hearsay to which no exception was offered. See, e.g. , Trotman v. State, 652 So. 2d 506, 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (reversing conviction where police officer offered hearsay testimony as to what non-testifying, unidentified witness had told him about defendant's involvement in crime); Bell v. State , 595 So. 2d 232, 234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ashlock v. State, 632 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)