THOMAS JAMES SCHERER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that while the evidence of indigence was insufficient to support a finding of violation for non-payment of supervision fees, the appellant's admissions to other substantial violations were sufficient to support the probation revocation.
Appellant was charged with three probation violations, admitting to two but denying the third (failure to pay supervision fees) due to indigence. The …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fla. Stat. § 921.161(1) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was charged with violating three conditions of his probation: (1) he failed to file one of the required monthly reports; (2) he was convicted of a crime committed after he was placed on probation; and (3) he had failed to pay any money toward the costs of his supervision. Appellant admitted the first two charged violations, but denied the third, explaining that he had not paid any money because he had no job. Appellant was indigent at the time of the revocation hearing. No other evidence concerning appellant’s financial condition was before the trial court. This evidence is insufficient to support a finding that appellant violated his probation by failing to pay his supervision fee. Coxon v. State, 365 So. 2d 1067 (Fla.2d DCA 1979). Nevertheless, appellant’s revocation is supported by his admissions of the other two charged violations, which are substantial violations and are sufficient to support the revocation order and judgment and sentence, so we will not remand for reconsideration of the revocation order by the trial judge. Coxon v. State, supra.
In addition, the judgment and sentence of the court, while indicating that appellant was to receive credit for all time served in jail, does not specifically set forth the period of credit time to be allowed as required by Section 921.161(1), Florida Statutes (1977). Smith v. State, 310 So. 2d 770 (Fla.2d DGA 1975).
Accordingly, the finding of a violation of the condition requiring payment of a monthly fee for supervision is stricken from the probation order, and the cause is remanded for correction of the sentence. Appellant need not be present for this purpose. The revocation order, judgment, and sentence are affirmed in all other respects.
GRIMES, C. J., and BOARDMAN and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Bennie Jess, Jr. v. State, 384 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…inations. Shanklin v. State, 369 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Tuff v. State, 338 So. 2d 1335 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); see McKeever v. State, 359 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Jones v. State, 348 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); compare Scherer v. State, 366 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) (unsupported probation violation not substantial in relation to other charges; remand not required); Sampson v. State, 375 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) (trial court indicated that revocation and sentence based on each and every v…
-
Wilson v. State, 506 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…en from the order under review. We do not, however, remand the cause for reconsideration either of the revocation or the sentence because we are convinced that neither would be affected by the deletion of this single violation. See Scherer v. State, 366 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); compare Aaron v. State, 400 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), pet. for review denied, 408 So. 2d 1095 (Fla.1981). Affirmed as modified.…
-
Earle v. State, 519 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)…med to have found a job. Appellant’s admissions, which are substantial under the facts and circumstances of this case, support the revocation orders and judgments and sentences. Wilson v. State, 506 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Scherer v. State, 366 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Coxon v. State, 365 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). It is apparent from the record that the trial court intended to revoke probation and impose the sentences it did solely on the grounds of the three admissions. There is no indi…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Coxon v. State, 365 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Smith v. State, 310 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Odom v. State, 310 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)