KEVIN HARTMAN, 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 revocation of community control was proper, but the imposition of costs without a hearing was an error.
Appellant sought review of an order revoking his community control and imposing court costs. The trial court found a violation of community control co…
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 Due Process Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks review of the trial court’s order revoking his community control and imposing court costs. We affirm the revocation of community control but reverse and remand as to the imposition of costs.
The purposes of an informal revocation hearing are to satisfy the conscience of the court that a condition has been violated and to offer the accused an opportunity to respond to the accusation. Holmes v. State, 311 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). The trial court’s conscience was satisfied that appellant violated a condition of his community control that he remain confined to his home except during specific time frames and that due process requirements were met. We agree and affirm the revocation of probation.
However, the trial court erred m assessing costs without a hearing. Mays v. State, 519 So. 2d 618 (Fla.1988); Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla.1984). We therefore, reverse and remand for a hearing on costs.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART.
DELL, WALDEN and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McCormick v. Makrim Salfity, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D891 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)
-
Edwards v. State, 561 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…the appellant’s motivation was his desire to prevent his probation officer from learning that he confessed to a theft. This is enough to satisfy the conscience of a trial court that a defendant violated the terms of probation. See Hartman v. State, 557 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). See also, Bernhardt v. State, 288 So. 2d 490 (Fla.1974). Therefore, we affirm the order and judgment. However, we remand for the trial court to correct the written order to conform to the court’s oral pronouncement by striking a…
Authorities Cited
- Jenkins v. State, 444 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 1984)
- Mays v. State, 519 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1988)
- Kalvin Holmes v. State, 311 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)