¶1We 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).
652 So. 2d 506
Martin v. State
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Decided March 29, 1995
District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1995-03-29
Relies on Ashlock v. State
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1995-03-29
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently September 2018
10 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →