MICHAEL ANTHONY BATES, 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.
A trial court cannot revoke a defendant's probation for failure to pay supervision costs without first determining the defendant's financial ability to pay.
[1] A trial court may not revoke a defendant's probation for failure to pay supervision costs without first determining the defendant's financial ability to pay.
[2] A defendant's probation may not be revoked based on failure to pay supervision costs if the trial court fails to make a finding of financial ability.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant's probation was revoked for failing to submit monthly reports and pay supervision costs. The trial court did not determine if appellant was …
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 Financial Ability To Pay cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Judge.
Appellant Bates appeals judgment and sentence against him, contending the trial court erred in revoking his probation. We reverse and remand.
Appellant’s probation was revoked by the trial court based on its finding that appellant had “substantially and materially” breached the terms and conditions of his probation by failing to submit the required monthly reports and “by failing to make payments for the cost of his supervision.” As a result appellant was sentenced to five years in prison.
The trial court failed to make a determination as to whether appellant was financially able to make those payments.
We are asked whether the trial court erred in revoking appellant’s probation for failing to pay the costs of his supervision absent a finding that appellant was financially able to pay those costs.
In Page v. State, 363 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) and in Jones v. State, 360 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), we held that absent a showing of financial ability, a trial court may not revoke a defendant’s probation based on the failure to pay for the costs of his supervision. In the case sub judice, the trial court failed to make a finding of financial ability and, therefore, appellant’s probation may not be properly revoked on the ground that appellant failed to pay for the costs of his supervision.
Although the revocation of probation could be based on appellant’s failure to file timely reports, we are not sure at all that the trial court would have revoked appellant’s probation and imposed a five year sentence based solely on that ground.
On that basis, we reverse the revocation of appellant’s probation and remand for a determination as to whether appellant had the financial ability to pay for the costs of his supervision, and, if financially unable, whether appellant’s probation should be revoked based solely on his failure to file timely monthly reports. See Page v. State, supra.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr., C.J., and THOMPSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thomas v. State, 453 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…ill stands. Both the failure to file reports and the failure to follow the probation officer’s supervisory instructions, though technical, are valid grounds for revoking probation. Haynes v. State, 440 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Bates v. State, 424 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Chappell v. State, 429 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Hutchinson v. State, 428 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). However, where a portion of the revocation order is reversed and the violation or violations stricken as invalid groun…
-
Griffis v. State, 848 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…ation of the revocation issue, for the record does not indicate whether the trial court would have revoked probation and imposed the same sentence in the absence of the conviction. Thomas v. State, 453 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Bates v. State, 424 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). The provision under which the State charged the Count Two offense reads: 827.03 Abuse, aggravated abuse, and neglect of a child; penalties.— (2) “Aggravated child abuse” occurs when a person: (a) Commits aggravated battery o…
Authorities Cited
- Frank v. State, 360 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Page v. State, 363 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)