JAMES LATTIMORE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
JAMES LATTIMORE, APPELLANT,
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
433 So. 2d 56
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1983)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
We vacate two of the three bases upon which defendant was found in violation of his probation because the state failed to demonstrate at the hearing: (a) that the defendant had willfully and not without fault failed to maintain employment, Chatman v. State, 365 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); and (b) that he had the financial ability to pay for the cost of his probationary supervision, Smith v. State, 373 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). In all other respects, the order of revocation of probation and entry of judgment and sentence thereon are affirmed.
Affirmed as modified.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pope v. State, 444 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…N, Judge. A defendant may not be found guilty of a violation of probation for failure to pay costs of supervision unless the state demonstrates his financial ability to pay. Edwards v. State, 439 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Lattimore v. State, 433 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Smith v. State, 373 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). The unrebut-ted testimony before the court established that defendant Pope had never been employed and had no apparent ability to pay. We vacate the finding of violation of probat…
Authorities Cited
- Chatman v. State, 365 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Smith v. State, 373 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)