ROBERT K. FOGARTY, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
Robert Fogarty's probation was revoked for failing to pay a fine and supervision fee. The court held that before revoking probation for nonpayment, the trial court must make a specific finding that the defendant had the ability to pay during the probationary period, not merely at the time of the revocation hearing.
The trial court must specifically determine whether an indigent defendant had the ability to pay the fine and fee during the probationary period before revoking probation for nonpayment. Present ability to pay at the time of the revocation hearing is insufficient; the court must examine the defendant's financial condition during the period when payment was allegedly due.
[1] A court must find an indigent defendant's financial ability to pay a fine or supervisory fee before revoking probation for nonpayment.
[2] A trial court must specifically determine whether a defendant had the financial ability to pay during the probationary period before revoking probation for nonpayment.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Before revoking a defendant's probation for nonpayment of a supervisory fee or fine, the trial court must find the indigent defendant's financial condition to be such that payment can be made.”
Establishes the core legal requirement that ability to pay during the probationary period must be determined before revocation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFogarty pleaded guilty to driving with a suspended license and received six months probation with conditions including a $186.50 fine and $15 monthly …
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 Indigent Defendants cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Chief Judge.
Robert K. Fogarty pleaded guilty to the charge of driving an automobile while his license was suspended and was sentenced to six months probation. Two of the conditions of his probation were that he pay a fine of $186.50 and pay a fee of $15.00 per month for his probation supervision. Thereafter, the state filed an affidavit alleging that Fogarty violated his probation by failing to satisfy the foregoing conditions.
The judge revoked Fogarty’s probation and sentenced him to sixty days in the county jail. Fogarty appealed the revocation to the circuit court, which affirmed. He now seeks the issuance of a writ of certiorari.
Fogarty asserts that the circuit court, .sitting in its appellate capacity, departed from the essential requirements of law in ruling that a specific finding of his ability to pay the fine and fee during the probationary period was unnecessary in light of his testimony that he had a present ability to pay. We agree.
After the state filed the affidavit of violation of probation, the court found petitioner to be insolvent and appointed a public defender to represent him. At the probation revocation hearing, petitioner testified that he had been unemployed during the probationary period until approximately one and one-half months before the hearing. Petitioner also testified that he had obtained a job after the affidavit of violation was filed and had a present and future ability to pay the fine and fee. No evidence was presented as to petitioner’s financial ability during the probationary period.
Before revoking a defendant’s probation for nonpayment of a supervisory fee or fine, the trial court must find the indigent defendant’s financial condition to be such that payment can be made. Coxon v. State, 365 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). The trial court should specifically determine whether the defendant had the ability to pay during the probationary period. Jones v. State, 360 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). The circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law in ruling that such a determination by the county court was unnecessary. This departure violated a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, we grant the petition for the issuance of a writ of certiorari. Combs v. State, 436 So. 2d 93 (Fla.1983).
We note that after the affidavit was filed, Fogarty made arrangements with his probation officer to perform forty-six and one-half hours of public service work at a hospital in lieu of the fine. The trial judge observed, and we agree, that the probation officer was without authority to set new conditions of probation. Only the court may set conditions upon which probation may be revoked. Suarez v. State, 391 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). In any event, petitioner never performed the public service work.
We quash the circuit court’s order, reverse and set aside the order of the county court revoking petitioner’s probation, and remand this cause to the county court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
OTT and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bass v. State, 473 So. 2d 1367 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…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 enactment of the 1984 amendments to Chapter 948, the burden was on the state “to produce ... evidence showing that appellant had the financial ability to make the payments.” I.P.J. v. State, 402 So. 2d 1373 (Fla. 1s…1 / 2
-
Williams v. State, 563 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…n 8 since a special condition of probation was successful completion of an inpatient drug treatment program, as referred to in his written negotiated plea. While only a court may set conditions upon which probation can be revoked, Fogarty v. State, 465 So. 2d 625 (Fla.2d DCA 1985), requiring a urinalysis here can only be seen as the specified “follow-up” and, therefore, a reasonable part of the normal supervisory directions given by a probation officer. See Holterhaus v. State, 417 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 2d DCA 19…
-
Alvarez v. State, 635 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…no condition in the probation order which required Alvarez to submit to random drug testing, Paterson v. State, 612 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), and because only a court may impose conditions upon which probation can be revoked. Fogarty v. State, 465 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Furthermore, the trial court’s order finding Alvarez in violation of probation due to his possession and use of marijuana does not conform to the court’s previous oral pronouncement which granted a motion to dismiss as to that co…
Authorities Cited
- Combs v. State, 436 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1983)
- Coxon v. State, 365 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Frank v. State, 360 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- James v. Suarez, 391 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)