ROBERT RYAN, 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.
Robert Ryan appealed the revocation of his probation and three-year concurrent sentence for violating four probation conditions. The court affirmed the probation revocation but remanded to delete an unsupported probation condition violation and correct the written order to match the oral pronouncement.
The court affirmed the revocation of probation as supported by ample evidence, but remanded the case to delete the violation of condition two (the costs payment condition lacking financial ability findings) and to correct the written order to be consistent with the oral pronouncement regarding condition three.
[1] A court must make a specific finding that a defendant has the ability to pay costs of supervision for a probation order requiring such payment to be enforceable.
[2] A court should specifically determine a defendant's ability to pay costs during a probationary period, based on findings of fact regarding their financial condition at th…
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“for an order of probation requiring payment of costs to be enforceable, the court must find that the indigent defendant's financial condition is such that payment can be made”
Establishes the legal requirement for probation orders to include specific findings about a defendant's ability to pay supervision costs.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial judge inquired into Ryan's financial status but made no specific finding regarding his ability to pay costs of supervision. The court found …
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
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on appeal from an order finding appellant in violation of four conditions of his probation, revoking his probation, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of three years of incarceration.
We affirm the revocation of probation but remand with instructions to delete the violation of condition two and to correct the written order, making it consistent with the oral pronouncement.
The evidence indicates that the trial judge inquired into the financial status of defendant, yet no specific finding of his ability to pay costs of supervision was made. As stated by this court in Jones v. State, 360 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), for an order of probation requiring payment of costs to be enforceable, the court must find that the indigent defendant’s financial condition is such that payment can be made. The court should specifically determine whether defendant had the ability to pay costs during the probationary period, based on findings of fact as to defendant’s financial condition both at the time the probation order was entered and at the present time. In the instant case, we do not remand for reconsideration of the revocation order as appellant’s revocation is supported by ample evidence. Boyink v. State, 480 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985).
However, remand is necessary for the ministerial function of correcting the written order so that it comports with the court’s oral pronouncement regarding condition three.
Accordingly, the order is remanded for correction of the matters referred to, but revocation of probation is otherwise affirmed.
BOOTH, C.J., ZEHMER, J., and BEN C. WILLIS (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Frank v. State, 360 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Boyink v. State, 480 So. 2d 210 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)