LLOYD REYNOLDS, 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.
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove a violation of the financial condition of probation, but sufficient to prove another condition, thus affirming the revocation of probation.
Appellant was charged with violating probation by failing to pay supervisory fees and by shooting into an occupied vehicle. The trial court found him …
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 Ability To Pay cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHOONOVER, Judge.
The appellant, Lloyd Reynolds, has appealed from the judgments and sentences entered against him as a result of an order finding him guilty of violating his probation. We affirm.
The appellant was charged with violating condition (9) of his probation by failing to pay $10 per month in supervisory fees, and with violating condition (5) of his probation by not living and remaining at liberty without violating the law. It was alleged that he shot into an occupied vehicle. At the conclusion of the appellant’s probation revocation hearing, the court found him guilty of violating the aforementioned conditions and revoked his probation. Appellant was adjudicated guilty of the offenses for which he was originally placed on probation and sentenced to serve two consecutive fifteen year prison sentences.
The evidence at the probation revocation hearing was insufficient to show that appellant had the ability to make the financial payments required by condition (9) of his probation. It was, therefore, improper to find him guilty of violating this condition, and we, accordingly, strike that portion of the revocation order. Raines v. State, 445 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).
There was competent substantial evidence, however, to support the finding of the trial court that appellant had violated condition (5) of the order. Since the record reflects that the trial court was concerned with this condition and not with the financial condition hereinabove stricken, we affirm the order revoking appellant’s probation and the judgments and sentences entered as a result thereof. Raines.
AFFIRMED.
GRIMES, A.C.J., and LEHAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rainey v. State, 528 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…r stated that all allegations contained in the affidavit resulted in a probation violation. It was, therefore, improper to find him guilty of violating condition number nine, and we strike that portion of the revocation order. See Reynolds v. State, 498 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Otherwise, the trial court s revocation order is affirmed. Affirmed. DANAHY, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER, J., concur.…
-
Cunningham v. State, 575 So. 2d 1375 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)…osts of supervision, one of the grounds upon which his probation was violated. We therefore strike from the order of revocation any reference to condition number 2. See Rainey v. State, 528 So. 2d 528 [*1376] (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Reynolds v. State, 498 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). SCHOONOVER, C.J., and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Alphonso Williams v. State, 445 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)