The appellant’s conviction and sentence are affirmed. However, we note an ambiguity in the restitution order dated November 1, 1991. One provision of that order reflects that restitution is denied while another provides that it is ordered in the sum of $41,701.65. The record reflects that the court was not going to order it “at this time.” We therefore reverse the sentence in part and remand so that any ambiguity may be resolved.