RICKY INEZ GRIMSLEY, 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 revocation for failure to pay restitution and supervision costs was improper due to the defendant's insolvency, revocation based on a technical violation of failing to report to a probation supervisor was proper and sufficient grounds for upholding the probation revocation.
Appellant's probation was revoked based on multiple violations, including failure to comply with his probation supervisor's instructions, failure to m…
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 Technical Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
BOARDMAN, Judge.
Ricky Inez Grimsley appeals the revocation of his probation. The trial court found him to have violated conditions (7), requiring appellant to comply with the instructions of his probation supervisor, and (9), requiring him to make restitution, as well as failing to comply with section 945.30, Florida Statutes (1979), requiring him to contribute $10.00 per month toward the cost of his supervision. Appellant was given a split sentence of three years in prison to be followed by one year on probation.
The trial court had adjudicated appellant insolvent at the time of entry of the order of probation, and there was no evidence presented concerning whether or not appellant was able to make restitution or pay the costs of supervision. Thus revocation on those grounds was improper. Cox-on v. State, 365 So. 2d 1067 (Fla.2d DCA 1979).
The finding of a violation of condition (7), failure to comply with the probation supervisor’s instructions to report monthly to the Sheriff’s Office in Clewi-ston, is supported by substantial, competent evidence but is a technical violation. Nevertheless, it is clear to us from the court’s comments that the trial court was incensed at appellant’s complete lack of effort to contact his probation supervisor and his complete indifference to his obligations under his probation order and that the technical nature of this violation was not a mitigating factor in the eyes of the trial court. We are satisfied that the trial court would have revoked appellant’s probation on this ground alone.
Accordingly, appellant’s judgment and sentence is AFFIRMED. However, this af-firmance is without prejudice to appellant’s raising the illegality of his sentence under Villery v. Florida Parole & Probation Com mission, 396 So. 2d 1107 (Fla.1980), by way of a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 motion filed in the trial court.
HOBSON, A.C.J., and OTT, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Doherty v. State, 448 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…uld reverse and remand with instructions to hold an evidentiary hearing as to whether Doherty has the ability to make restitution. Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.140(g); Murphy v. State, 442 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Grimsley v. State, 408 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Jones v. State, 360 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). I do, therefore, respectfully dissent.…
-
Goley v. State, 584 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…low routine supervisory instructions given by a probation officer is a proper ground for revocation. See generally Haynes v. State, 440 So. 2d 661, 662 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Chappell v. State, 429 So. 2d 84, 85 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Grimsley v. State, 408 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). In the cases cited, the courts have found multiple probation violations, a complete indifference to compliance with conditions of probation, or a failure of the probationer to file more than one report. The Second District Court…
-
State v. Castro, 491 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…to be revoked because of his failure to perform that condition of probation. At the time of the probation revocation hearing, the trial court will have to consider the application of Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984) and Grimsley v. State, 408 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) and determine whether appellee has the ability to pay any costs imposed prior to the revocation of his probation. The trial court also erred when it held that 27.3455, in providing for community service in lieu of the imposition…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Villery v. The Fla. Parole & Prob. Comm'n, 396 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 1980)
- Coxon v. State, 365 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)