Holloway v. State, 393 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). · Go Syfert
Holloway v. State, 393 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Cited for
At page 1186 cited at this page1 citing case
  • Horton v. Martin Mem'l Hosp., 610 So. 2d 1352 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).published
    The carrier may reduce compensation payments to account for social security benefits only prospectively, as of the date it exercises its right under Section 440.15(10), Florida Statutes (1977). 393 So.2d at 1186 (emphasis added).
Other citing cases2 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Daniel Eugene HOLLOWAY
v.
STATE of Florida
No. 80-1669.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Feb 13, 1981.
Published opinion
393 So. 2d 1185
1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 18676
Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, and William H. Pasch, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant., Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and James S. Purdy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Boardman, Hobson, Scheb.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

Daniel Eugene Holloway appeals his placement on probation (adjudication withheld) for loitering, grand theft, petit theft, and two counts of burglary. We affirm the order of probation, but remand for modification of the probationary term.

Only one of the points appellant raises has merit. He was given five years probation on the loitering count and one year probation on the petit theft count. However, both loitering, a violation of section 856.021, Florida Statutes (1979), and petit theft, a violation of section 812.014(2)(c), are second-degree misdemeanors, for which the maximum probationary term is six months. § 948.04(1); Alderman v. State, 356 So.2d 928 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978).

Accordingly, these parts of the order of probation setting forth the terms of probation on the loitering and petit theft counts are vacated and the cause remanded with directions to impose new probationary terms within the maximum allowable by statute. The order of probation is otherwise affirmed.

SCHEB, C. J., and HOBSON and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.