From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Milloway v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Oct 16, 1990
567 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

Opinion

No. 90-289.

October 16, 1990.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court of Monroe County; Helio Gomez, Judge.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Bruce A. Rosenthal, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Anita J. Gay, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before HUBBART, COPE and GERSTEN, JJ.


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.


Summaries of

Milloway v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Oct 16, 1990
567 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)
Case details for

Milloway v. State

Case Details

Full title:JIMMY MILLOWAY, APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Oct 16, 1990

Citations

567 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

Citing Cases

Chambers v. State

Appellant contends, and the State concedes, that portions of the probation order must be stricken because…