FERNANDO JONES, 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.
Fernando Jones appeals his probation revocation and three-year prison sentence. The appellate court reversed and remanded because the evidence was insufficient to support violations of financial payment conditions, though violations of reporting and instruction-following conditions were supported.
The court reversed the probation revocation because the evidence was insufficient to show Jones had the ability to make the required financial payments (conditions 2 and 10), though the evidence did support violations of the reporting and instruction-following conditions. The case was remanded because the court could not be certain the trial court would have revoked probation based solely on those remaining violations.
[1] A probation revocation cannot be based on a violation that was neither admitted nor proven.
[2] Where a probation revocation is predicated on multiple alleged violations, and one of those violations is not established, the revocation must be reversed if it is uncert…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“We find that the evidence presented at the probation revocation hearing was insufficient to show that appellant had the ability to make the financial payments required of him by conditions (2) and (10) of his probation.”
Establishes the key legal principle that probation violations for failure to pay require proof of ability 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 intelligenceJones pleaded guilty to sale of cocaine and was placed on probation for three years. He was charged with violating four probation conditions: (1) mont…
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 Substantial Violation Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHOONOVER, Judge.
Appellant, Fernando Jones, appeals from a judgment and sentence entered upon a finding that he had violated the terms and conditions of his probation. We reverse and remand for resentencing.
Appellant, after pleading guilty to sale of a controlled substance, cocaine, a violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes (1983), was placed on probation for three years. He subsequently was charged with violating conditions (1), (2), (8), and (10) of his probation. Condition (1) required appellant to submit monthly reports; condition (2) required him to make payments toward the cost of his supervision; condition (8) required him to follow instructions of his probation officer; and condition (10) required him to pay $403.50 in court costs.
At the conclusion of appellant’s revocation of probation hearing, the trial court found him guilty of violating all four conditions. The court, without entering a written order revoking appellant’s probation, sentenced him to serve three years in the state prison.1 This appeal timely followed.
We find that the evidence presented at the probation revocation hearing was insufficient to show that appellant had the ability to make the financial payments required of him by conditions (2) and (10) of his probation. The trial court therefore erred in finding appellant guilty of violating these conditions. Rodriguez v. State, 405 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). There was, however, sufficient evidence presented to support the trial court’s finding that appellant failed to submit written monthly reports and to follow lawful instructions given to him by his probation officer. Although failure to file written reports and failure to follow a probation officer’s instructions may be considered substantial violations of probation, Roth v. State, 406 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Edwards v. State, 439 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), we are uncertain that the trial court in this case would have revoked probation and imposed the sentence it did solely on those grounds. We, accordingly, reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith. McKeever v. State, 359 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978).
Reversed and remanded.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur. . In view of our disposition of the matter, it is not necessary for us to remand for the entry of a written order revoking appellant’s probation, or to consider the validity of the trial court's reasons for departure from the guidelines.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Roseboro v. State, 528 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…hat the appellant willfully misrepresented his name, the names of his family members, and his prior criminal record. We find that such conduct constituted a “substantial” violation of condition eight of the appellant’s probation. Cf. Jones v. State, 479 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (failure to file written reports and failure to follow probation officer’s instructions may be considered substantial violations). See also, Roth v. State, 406 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). The trial court, therefore, did not abu…
-
Joseph v. State, 608 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…the trial court’s Amended Warrant would not be sufficient to revoke appellant’s community control, we hold that the remaining grounds do constitute a valid basis for revocation. See Warren v. State, 499 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987), Jones v. State, 479 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), and Haynes v. State, 571 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Accordingly, we affirm. DELL, GUNTHER and POLEN, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Edwards v. State, 439 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- McKEEVER v. State, 359 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)
- Roth v. State, 406 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Terry v. State, 406 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Rodriguez v. State, 405 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)