ARTHUR JAMES WILLIAMS, A/K/A JAMES EDWARD SMITH, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Probation Supervision cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the order revoking probation and remand this matter to the trial court for reconsideration because we find that only one ground for revocation is sustainable on appeal, that of failure to file monthly reports. The violations added after the term of probation had ended cannot be prosecuted. Clark v. State, 402 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). The violations concerning defaults in payment of costs fail because of lack of proof of ability to pay.
While the failure to file monthly reports may be a proper basis, of itself, to revoke probation, such a violation is a technical one and, depending on the circumstances surrounding such violation, may cause a trial court to decide that probation should be revoked and incarceration or some other alternative besides probation utilized. See Davis v. State, 474 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).
DOWNEY and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur. LETTS, J., specially concurs with opinion.
LETTS, Judge,
specially concurring.
I specially concur because I do not believe the majority opinion stresses that the trial judge, upon remand, may come to the same conclusion as he did before.
I am also apprehensive that it appear we are suggesting that monthly reports are but “technical” niceties. True, they involve some paper work compliance by the supervisor and certainly, a failure to report does not rise to the level of an armed robbery. Nonetheless, by definition, probation envisions supervision and control by the department of corrections. Among other normal requirements of this supervision and control, is the duty to report to the probation supervisor [see section 948.-08(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1983) ]. Without such reporting, coupled with the monster case load endured by probation officers, there will be, as a practical consequence, no control and no supervision — ergo nonexistent probation.
Accordingly, I view failure to report as a serious violation of probation regardless of any technicalities involved in the manner of its fulfillment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. State, 492 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…PER CURIAM. We previously reversed and remanded because we concluded that only one of the grounds recited by the trial court for revocation of appellant’s probation was valid. Williams v. State, 475 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). On remand, the trial court, based on the evidence at the prior hearing, came to the same conclusion, and sentenced appellant. It failed to enter a formal order of revocation of probation. Appellant claims error because the trial…
-
Molly v. State, 490 So. 2d 1071 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…PER CURIAM. We find no error in the trial court’s modification of appellant’s probation. Williams v. State, 475 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Watkins v. State, 368 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). The order modifying probation erroneously lists conspiracy to possess morphine as one of the grounds for modification. The trial court did not rely upon this reason and it sho…
Authorities Cited
- Clark v. State, 402 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Ranzel Davis v. State, 474 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)