WILLIAMS
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.
Williams appeals his probation revocation and 25-year concurrent sentences following a violation of probation hearing. The court affirmed the revocation and sentences but found insufficient evidence for one violation ground (failure to pay cost of supervision) and remanded to correct the order.
The court affirmed the findings of violations for possession of hydrocodone and possession of drug paraphernalia, but found insufficient evidence for the failure to pay cost of supervision violation. However, the revocation and sentences were still affirmed because the court would have revoked probation based on the other violations.
[1] A finding of probation violation based on failure to pay supervision costs requires proof that the probationer had the ability to pay but purposely failed to do so.
[2] An appellate court may affirm a probation revocation order even if one ground for revocation is unsupported by sufficient evidence, if other grounds independently support…
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“regarding Williams' failure to pay the cost of supervision, there was insufficient evidence to show that Williams had the ability to pay but purposely did not do so”
Establishes the legal standard for failure to pay violations, requiring proof of both ability and willful refusal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn November 2013, Williams pleaded nolo contendere to armed robbery in four cases and received 5-year concurrent sentences with 10 years probation. In…
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 Possession Of A Controlled Substance cases and more on FLexlaw
RAY, J.
In November 2013, Damascus Isaiah Williams pleaded nolo contendere to one count of armed robbery in four cases. He was sentenced in each case to a downward departure sentence of 5 years in prison followed by 10 years on probation, with these sentences to run concurrently.
In May 2023, an amended violation of probation (VOP) affidavit was filed alleging that he violated his probation by (1) committing the new offense of possession of a controlled substance (hydrocodone), (2) committing the new offense of possession of a controlled substance (cocaine), (3) committing the new offense of possession of drug paraphernalia, (4) failing to pay the cost of supervision, and (5) associating with a person engaged in criminal activity. After an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court determined that he had committed the violations alleged in grounds (1), (3), and (4). The court revoked his probation and sentenced him to concurrent terms of 25 years in prison in each case.
On appeal, Williams argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove the three violations found by the circuit court. We affirm without discussion the court’s finding that Williams violated his probation by committing the new offenses of possession of hydrocodone and possession of drug paraphernalia. But regarding Williams’ failure to pay the cost of supervision, there was insufficient evidence to show that Williams had the ability to pay but purposely did not do so. See Giambrone v. State, 109 So. 3d 1279, 1280–81 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). Even so, it is clear from the record that absent the improper ground, the court would still have revoked his probation and imposed the same sentences. See Edwards v. State, 243 So. 3d 520, 521 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018). Therefore, we affirm the revocation order and resulting sentences but remand for the correction of the order to delete the finding of a violation based on ground (4) of the amended VOP affidavit.
AFFIRMED and REMANDED with instructions.
B.L. THOMAS and NORDBY, JJ., concur. _____________________________