TONY LEONARD SCOTT, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
OTT, Chief Judge.
Appellant’s probation was revoked because he failed to pay monthly cost of supervision fees and because he violated the law by failing to redeliver a hired vehicle. See § 817.52(3), Fla.Stat. (1981). There was no evidence adduced that the monthly fees were not paid nor that appellant had the ability to pay the fees. Therefore, we strike the finding of this violation. See Coxon v. State, 365 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).
There was sufficient evidence to support the finding that appellant violated the law. The record is clear that the lower court would have revoked appellant’s probation for this violation alone. See Sillett v. State, 393 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Accordingly, the order revoking appellant’s probation is AFFIRMED.
CAMPBELL and LEHAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Donnie Warren v. State, 499 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…urt’s order of revocation based only upon violations of conditions (2) and (3) since the record is clear that the lower court would have revoked defendant’s probation for any violations where the defendant failed to follow the rules. Scott v. State, 446 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). We reverse as to condition (9) and the special condition and direct the trial court to enter an order striking these two violations from the order of revocation of probation. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED. D…
-
Burse v. State, 724 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…rdingly, there is not sufficient evidence that Burse twice violated probation condition (9). A revocation of probation stands even where findings for revocation are stricken where any violation sufficient for revocation remains. See Scott v. State, 446 So. 2d 1105, 1105 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Accordingly, we affirm the revocation of probation and remand this case to the trial court to strike the improper findings of violations of condition (9). Affirmed and remanded with directions to the trial court. PARKER,…
-
Daniels v. State, 680 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…lawful occupation; and Condition (12), remain confined to his approved residence. We strike the lower court’s findings that Appellant violated conditions (5) and (8), as they were not supported by any evidence other than hearsay. See Scott v. State, 446 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), and Vezina v. State, 644 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). We hold that there was sufficient evidence to support the finding that Appellant violated the condition requiring him to remain at his residence. See Porras v. State, 651 S…
Previewing 3 of 4 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)
- Sillett v. State, 393 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)