NATHANIEL JACKSON, 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.
Nathaniel Jackson appeals his probation revocation for robbery, challenging findings that he violated conditions requiring monthly reports and payment of supervision costs. The court affirms the revocation based on his admitted failure to submit reports, but strikes the violation finding regarding supervision costs because the state presented no evidence he had the ability to pay.
Probation cannot be revoked for failure to pay financial obligations absent evidence that the probationer had the ability to pay. However, the revocation was properly supported by Jackson's admitted failure to submit monthly reports and keep his probation officer informed of his whereabouts, so the revocation stands but the violation finding regarding supervision costs is struck.
[1] Probation cannot be revoked for failure to pay supervision costs absent evidence of the probationer's ability to pay.
[2] A probationer's admission of failure to submit required reports and maintain contact with a probation officer constitutes sufficient grounds for revocation.
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“probation cannot be revoked based on a failure to pay costs or meet financial obligations absent evidence that the probationer had the ability to pay”
Establishes the legal standard requiring proof of ability to pay before revoking probation for financial violations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJackson successfully completed one and one-half years of probation before being charged with violating two probation conditions: failing to submit mon…
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 Supervision Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
[*746] HALL, Judge.
Nathaniel Jackson appeals from his judgment and sentence for robbery following revocation of his probation. He argues that there was no evidence presented at the revocation hearing that he had the ability to pay supervision costs or that he willfully refused to submit the reports required by the terms of his probation. We affirm the appellant’s judgment and sentence, but strike the portion of the trial court’s revocation order that finds the appellant in violation of condition (2), which requires him to pay the cost of his supervision.
The record shows that after successfully completing one and one-half years of probation, the appellant was charged with violating conditions (1) and (2) of his probation. The affidavit of violation of probation alleges that the appellant failed to submit monthly reports to his probation officer for seven months, failed to keep his probation officer apprised of his current whereabouts, and failed to pay the cost of his supervision. The appellant pled guilty to the violation charges but contended that his failure to comply with the probation terms was not willful and requested that the court reinstate his probation. He stated that he was recovering from gunshot wounds and, therefore, could not make his reports on time or work to pay for his supervision.
The appellant argues that probation cannot be revoked based on a failure to pay costs or meet financial obligations absent evidence that the probationer had the ability to pay. McCrary v. State, 464 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). We agree that the state failed to present any evidence that the appellant, who was declared by the court to be indigent, had the ability to pay supervision costs. Therefore, we strike that portion of the revocation order which finds the appellant in violation of condition (2). However, since the appellant admitted that he failed to submit monthly reports and keep the probation officer apprised of his whereabouts, there was sufficient ground to support the trial court’s decision to revoke the appellant’s probation. See e.g., Grimsley v. State, 408 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982).
Accordingly, we affirm the appellant’s judgment and sentence, but strike the portion of the revocation order which finds the appellant in violation of condition (2).
FRANK, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Manies v. State, 621 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…183 (Fla.1978); Brown v. State, 338 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). Revocation of Manies’ probation for failure to pay costs was also error. Revocation on this basis is improper absent evidence of the probationer’s ability to pay. Jackson v. State, 546 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Manies testified he was unable to make the payments. The probation officer “presumed” Manies had the ability to pay his costs. Where a probation officer only “believed” a defendant was working and “felt” he could pay, the evidenc…
-
Evins v. State, 690 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…imposed upon revocation of probation. While it is true that the trial court could have revoked the defendant’s probation solely for the two other violations charged, see e.g., Gavins v. State, 587 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Jackson v. State, 546 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); McPherson v. State, 530 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); May v. State, 472 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Sparks v. State, 453 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), it is unclear from this record whether or not the battery charge was t…
-
McCormick v. Makrim Salfity, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D891 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- McCRARY v. State, 464 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Grimsley v. State, 408 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)