MORGAN SMITH, II
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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 appellate court reviewed a trial court's decision to revoke probation. While upholding the revocation based on the defendant absconding, the court reversed the portion related to monetary conditions due to the trial court's failure to determine the defendant's ability to pay.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking probation based on Smith's absconding and other non-monetary violations. However, the revocation based on monetary conditions was improper because the trial court failed to determine Smith's ability to pay.
[1] Before a trial court may revoke probation based on a probationer's failure to pay restitution or fees, the court must make an explicit determination that the probationer…
[2] Failure to make the requisite inquiry into a probationer's ability to pay monetary obligations before revoking probation constitutes reversible error requiring correction…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“On review of an order of revocation of probation, the appellate court first examines whether competent substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding of a willful and substantial violation.”
Establishes the standard of review for probation revocation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant, Smith, had his probation revoked and was sentenced to prison. The trial court found he willfully violated probation by absconding from …
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 Restitution cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Smith appeals a final order revoking his probation and sentencing him to prison. We review a trial court’s decision to revoke probation for abuse of discretion. Lawson v. State, 969 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 2007). “On review of an order of revocation of probation, the appellate court first examines whether competent substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding of a willful and substantial violation.” Marchan v. State, 192 So. 3d 658, 660 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016).
There was competent, substantial evidence supporting the trial court’s findings. Smith absconded from the state against the terms of his probation and against his probation officer’s express direction. Smith made no efforts to comply with the terms
requiring him to find employment, enroll in an educational program, and enroll in a batterer’s intervention program. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Smith’s probation on these conditions.
However, the trial court failed to make a determination regarding Smith’s ability to pay restitution and drug-testing fees, before violating his probation on those grounds. “[B]efore a person on probation can be imprisoned for failing to make restitution, there must be a determination that that person has, or has had, the ability to pay but has willfully refused to do so.” Stephens v. State, 630 So. 2d 1090, 1091 (Fla. 1994). “Under Florida law, the trial court must make its finding regarding whether the probationer willfully violated probation by the greater weight of the evidence.” Del Valle v. State, 80 So. 3d 999, 1002 (Fla. 2011). “Harmful due process errors are fundamental errors, which need not be preserved for appeal.” Id. at 1004. Failure to make the requisite inquiry into Smith’s ability to pay is a reversible error. The findings that Smith willfully violated these monetary conditions must be stricken from the probation order. Marzendorfer v. State, 16 So. 3d 957, 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009).
The record is clear that Smith’s revocation was based primarily on his absconsion, which was his second time absconding from probation. The record further reflects that his probation would have been revoked regardless of the monetary conditions and the same sentence would have been imposed. Cf. Kimmons v. State, 267 So. 3d 1082, 1084 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (holding that remand for resentencing was required where certain grounds for violation of probation were stricken on appeal and it was “not clear from the record whether the court would have imposed the same five-year sentence”). Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s judgment but remand for correction of the revocation order. AFFIRMED and REMANDED. BILBREY, NORDBY, and LONG, JJ., concur. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- del Valle v. State, 80 So. 3d 999 (Fla. 2011)
- Stephens v. State, 630 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 1994)
- Marzendorfer v. State, 16 So. 3d 957 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- Kimmons v. State, 267 So. 3d 1082 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)
- Marchan v. State, 192 So. 3d 658 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)