PATRICK TRACY, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed revocation of community control because the sentencing order improperly delegated cost determination to probation officer and failed to specify payment schedules or time limits.
A sentencing order placing a defendant on community control cannot delegate cost determination to a probation officer and must specify payment schedules and time limits for costs, fees, and community service.
[1] A court cannot delegate to a probation officer the determination of the amount of restitution, costs, or fees to be paid by a defendant on community control.
[2] When a community control order fails to specify a payment schedule or time limit for costs and fees, the defendant has the entire probation term to comply, and revocation…
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“The amount of restitution cannot be delegated by the court to a probation officer.”
Court explaining the principle that sentencing determinations must be made by the court, not delegated to probation officials.
Patrick Tracy was placed on community control with an order requiring him to pay costs at a rate to be determined through the Department of Correction…
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 Sentencing Conditions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the revocation of appellant’s community control.
First, the order which he allegedly violated required him to pay costs at a rate per month to be determined “through the Department of Corrections.” The amount of restitution cannot be delegated by the court to a probation officer. See e.g., Goodling v. State, 482 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). That principle has been applied to costs and fees. Moore v. State, 623 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).
Second, because the order placing him on community control did not specify either a payment schedule or a time limit for paying costs and fees, or a time limit for completing community service, appellant had the entire time of his probation in which to do so. See Young v. State, 566 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). This revocation, which occurred before the term was up, was thus improper. In addition, the state concedes error in that the written order which found seven grounds for revocation does not conform to the oral pronouncement which found only three.
We find no error in the other grounds for revocation, but remand for reconsideration in light of our conclusion that one of the grounds was improper. See Durden v. State, 577 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).
KLEIN, PARIENTE and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shepard v. State, 939 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…e probation period to pay. See Shipman v. State, 903 So. 2d 386, 387 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)(reversing revocation of defendant’s probation for failure to pay court costs where no schedule or time period for payment was provided); see also Tracy v. State, 673 So. 2d 544, 544-5 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)(reversing revocation of appellant’s community control for failure to pay costs and fees where order placing him on community control failed to specify time limit or schedule for payment). Although we note the cases cited…
-
Shipman v. State, 903 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…); Butler v. State, 775 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); O’Neal v. State, 801 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Melecio v. State, 662 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). The rule articulated in Oates and similar cases is applicable here. In Tracy v. State, 673 So. 2d 544, 544-45 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), the rule was applied to circumstances identical to those present here. [B]ecause the order placing him on [probation] did not specify either a payment schedule or a time limit for paying costs and fees, or a time limit…
-
Antoine v. State, 684 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…l pronouncement is silent with regard to the terms and, more specifically, does not specify either a payment schedule or a time limit for paying costs, appellant has the entire term of his community control within which to do so. See Tracy v. State, 673 So. 2d 544, 545 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Thus, it was error for the court to revoke appellant’s community control prior to the expiration of appellant’s community control term. The written order’s delegation to appellant’s community control officer of the task of…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Young v. State, 566 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)
- Moore v. State, 623 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Goodling v. State, 482 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Durden v. State, 577 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)