HOMER MARTIN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
Appellant’s probation was revoked for failure to pay restitution, a fine, the public defender’s fee and costs of supervision, and for failure to file monthly reports. There was no evidence to show that appellant was able to pay the various sums, and we order that those violations be stricken from the order. Coxon v. State, 365 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). However, we have reviewed the transcript of the revocation hearing and are satisfied that the trial court was more concerned with appellant’s failure to maintain regular contact with his probation supervisor than with his failure to make payments. Cf. Tuff v. State, 338 So. 2d 1335 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). Therefore, we AFFIRM the order revoking the appellant’s probation.
HOBSON, Acting C. J., and OTT and RYDER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sillett v. State, 393 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)…was competent evidence to support the finding of the trial court that appellant failed to submit monthly reports. The record makes clear that the lower court was prepared to revoke appellant’s probation for this violation alone. See Martin v. State, 378 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). Therefore, we affirm the order revoking appellant’s probation. SCHEB, C. J., and RYDER, J., concur.…
-
Tutkaluk v. Ryan, 382 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…PER CURIAM. This cause is affirmed on the authority of Reid v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 352 So. 2d 1172 (Fla.1977) and Gibson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 378 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1979). We agree with the well reasoned opinion of Judge Grimes in Gibson. [*1280] MOORE and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., and JOHN J. UPCHURCH, IV, Associate Judge, concur.…
-
Tutkaluk v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 433 So. 2d 1362 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…and Casualty Company, 352 So. 2d 1172 (Fla.1977); Connie Tutkaluk v. John Ryan, James McDougald and state [sic] Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 382 So. 2d 1279 (4th D.C.A.1980); and Gibson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 378 So. 2d 875 (2nd D.C.A.1979). At oral argument both counsel agreed that the principles recited in Mullis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 252 So. 2d 229 (Fla.1971), remain viable; but the insurer contends that James McDougald was not an uninsured…
Authorities Cited
- Coxon v. State, 365 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Tuff v. State, 338 So. 2d 1335 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)