JAMES ALLEN, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Probation Revocation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The trial court found that three separate acts or omissions justified revoking the defendant’s probation. Our review of the record leads us to conclude that there is abundant evidence to support two of the bases. However, the third basis for revocation, failure to pay the costs of supervision, cannot be sustained because the record does not demonstrate that the defendant had the ability to pay. See Winfield v. State, 406 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Deason v. State, 404 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Aaron v. State, 400 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 408 So. 2d 1095 (Fla.1981). Accordingly, we instruct the trial court, on remand, to strike the finding of failure to pay as a basis for revocation.
As modified by this opinion, the defendant’s conviction and sentence are
AFFIRMED.
GLICKSTEIN, HURLEY and BARK-ETT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Norris Coleman v. State, 252 So. 3d 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)…trial court to strike the violations for failure to pay restitution and court costs because the record does not demonstrate that appellant had the ability to pay those costs. See Del Valle v. State, 80 So. 3d 999, 1011 (Fla. 2011); Allen v. State, 464 So. 2d 256, 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Because the trial court expressly stated that the violation for those two counts did not warrant a prison sentence and that its sentence was based on the other violations, “it is clear from the record that the trial court…
Authorities Cited
- Aaron v. State, 400 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Murphy v. Town OF Palm Beach, 406 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Winfield v. State, 406 So. 2d 50 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Deason v. State, 404 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)