THOMAS HENDERSON, 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.
Henderson was placed on probation for felony petit theft and charged with violating two probation conditions: failing to complete a 28-day alcohol rehabilitation program and consuming alcohol. The trial court revoked his probation, but the appellate court reversed because the State failed to prove Henderson had the ability to pay the program's entrance fee and remanded for reconsideration of whether the intoxication violation alone warranted revocation.
The trial court erred in placing the burden on Henderson to prove he could not afford the $120 entrance fee; the State must prove the probationer had the ability to pay. The order of revocation cannot be supported on the ground of failure to complete the program. The court cannot determine whether the trial court would have revoked probation solely on the intoxication violation without remand, so the case is reversed and remanded for reconsideration.
[1] The State bears the burden of proving a probationer's ability to pay a required fee when seeking revocation based on non-payment.
[2] A probationer's failure to pay an undisputed entrance fee for a rehabilitation program cannot support revocation without evidence of the probationer's ability to pay.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 burden is upon the State to show that the probationer had the ability to make a required payment in order to support a revocation of probation for failure to make such payment.”
Establishes the critical burden of proof issue—the State must prove ability to pay, not the probationer prove inability to pay.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHenderson pleaded guilty to felony petit theft for stealing an alcoholic beverage and was placed on probation. His probation required him to complete …
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, Judge.
This appeal is from an order revoking appellant’s probation. We reverse.
Appellant was placed on probation after pleading guilty to felony petit theft for . stealing an alcoholic beverage from a convenience store. He was charged with violating two conditions of his probation: 1) that he attend and successfully complete a designated 28-day alcohol rehabilitation program, and 2) that he consume no alcoholic beverages whatsoever. The trial court found that the evidence presented at the hearing was sufficient to show the violation of both conditions, and revoked appellant’s probation.
Appellant testified that he had not entered the rehabilitation program because an entrance fee of $120 had been instituted, and he did not have the money to pay that fee. A supervisor from the Metropolitan Alcoholism Council (MACO), the organization which ran the 28-day program, testified at the hearing that the reason appellant did not get into that program was because he did not have the up front money. Instead, appellant was placed in a halfway house operated by MACO for less intensive rehabilitation. There, he was expected to attend meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous, remain sober, and observe a curfew. There was evidence presented to support the trial court’s finding that appellant broke his curfew and was intoxicated.
On the issue of appellant’s failure to attend the 28-day program, the State offered no evidence that appellant had the ability to pay the entrance fee. The trial court instead placed on appellant the burden of showing that he did not have the ability to make that payment. This put the burden of proof on the wrong party. The burden is upon the State to show that the probationer had the ability to make a required payment in order to support a revocation of probation for failure to make such payment. Shaw v. State, 391 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Holt v. State, 385 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). Because the imposition of the entrance fee was undisputed, and because the State offered no evidence that appellant had the ability to pay that fee, the order of revocation cannot be supported on that ground.
The finding that appellant violated the probation order by consuming alcohol and becoming intoxicated is a substantial violation and would support the order of revocation. However, we note from the record that the trial court observed that appellant’s criminal conduct is alcohol related and that he is in critical need of alcohol counseling and treatment. Thus we are unable to determine if the trial court would have revoked appellant’s probation on the sole ground that he had been intoxicated. For this reason, we set aside the order of revocation and the sentence, and remand the cause to the trial court for a reconsideration of the issues, and for such further proceedings as are appropriate. See, Orr v. State, 453 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). The trial court may take such additional testimony as it may deem necessary to a proper determination of the charges against appellant.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr. and SHARP, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kolovrat v. State, 574 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…ility to pay restitution in the amount ordered by the Flagler County probation officer. Since defendant lacked the ability to pay $444 a month, she could not have violated her probation by failing to comply with this instruction. Henderson v. State, 461 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). The evidence in this ease shows that defendant did not immediately report to jail as instructed by the probation offi [*297] cer. Defendant became confused by the instruction to report to jail. She had satisfied the requirement…
-
Hockman v. State, 465 So. 2d 619 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…ments because she did not have the money to pay for the test. In order to prove appellant violated her probation under these facts, the state has the burden of showing that appellant had the ability to pay for the polygraph test. Henderson v. State, 461 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). The court revoked appellant’s probation on April 13, 1984 and, therefore, appellant could elect to be sentenced under the guide [*621] lines which went into effect on October 1, 1983. Boyett v. State, 452 So. 2d 958 (Fla. 2d DC…
Authorities Cited
- Shaw v. State, 391 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Holt v. State, 385 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- ORR v. State, 453 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)