JAMES L. SAMPSON, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed probation revocation for failure to pay supervision and court costs because the record lacked evidence of appellant's ability to pay, and remanded for proper findings on financial condition and jail-time credit.
Probation revocation for failure to pay costs must be supported by specific findings that the probationer had ability to pay during the probationary period.
[1] Revocation of probation for failure to pay supervision and court costs requires specific trial court findings establishing the probationer's ability to pay during the pro…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the testimony should establish specifically the financial condition of appellant at the time the probation order was entered. Further, the financial condition of appellant at the present time should be examined. The court should make findings of fact concerning the aforementioned and should specifically determine whether appellant had ability to pay costs during the probationary period.”
Court's instruction for remand hearing regarding required findings on ability to pay
Sampson's probation was revoked based on failure to pay costs of supervision and court costs. The trial court made ambiguous findings regarding his ab…
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 Ability To Pay Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order revoking probation on the grounds of failure to pay costs of supervision and court costs. The trial court’s finding as to appellant’s ability to pay was ambiguous, and the record does not reveal evidence that appellant had ability to pay. On the contrary, the record shows that appellant was adjudicated insolvent prior to the probation revocation hearing and again for the purpose of appeal. This case is factually similar to that of Jones v. State, 360 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), in that regard, and pursuant to that case, we must reverse the order of revocation of probation and remand for a hearing as in Jones, supra:
At such hearing, the testimony should establish specifically the financial condition of appellant at the time the probation order was entered. Further, the financial condition of appellant at the present time should be examined. The court should make findings of fact concerning the aforementioned and should specifically determine whether appellant had ability to pay costs during the probationary period.
We also find merit in appellant’s contention that the trial court erred in failing to award credit for time previously served in the Nassau County jail as a condition of probation, Section 921.161(1), Florida Statutes; Calhoun v. State, 403 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), and on remand the court shall determine the amount of time served in the county jail and allow that as credit against appellant’s sentence.
MILLS, BOOTH and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bass v. State, 473 So. 2d 1367 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…greement. The eases hold uniformly that when probation is conditioned upon payment of restitution, or payment of costs of supervision, the trial court should make a factual determination regarding the probationer’s ability to pay. Sampson v. State, 453 So. 2d 919 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Gammon v. State, 451 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Winfield v. State, 406 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Jones v. State, 360 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Fogarty v. State, 465 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). And, prior to…
-
Proctor v. State, 480 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…July 1, 1984. Ch. 84-328, Laws of Florida; The Florida Bar: Amendment to the Rules of Criminal Procedure (3.701; 3.988 — Sentencing Guidelines), 451 So. 2d 824 (Fla.1984). . See Jones v. State, 360 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Sampson v. State, 453 So. 2d 919 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).…
Authorities Cited
- Frank v. State, 360 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Calhoun v. State, 403 So. 2d 1082 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)