ANTHONY HAYGOOD, 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.
Anthony Haygood appealed his community control violation conviction and revocation sentence. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, finding that while the trial court erroneously considered certain violations, ample evidence supported the revocation based on proper grounds.
The trial court's judgment and sentence were affirmed because ample evidence supported the community control violation based on proper grounds (assault and battery and failure to pay supervision costs), even though the court erred in considering the arrest and in allowing the Department of Corrections to establish a payment schedule for court costs rather than doing so judicially.
[1] A misstatement by the court, even if erroneous, may be deemed harmless error if ample evidence supports the conclusion that a defendant violated community control.
[2] A trial court may affirm a judgment and sentence if other grounds exist to support the finding of a violation, even if one ground considered was erroneous.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Ample evidence supports the trial court's conclusion that Appellant violated community control, notwithstanding that the record does contain a misstatement by the court, erroneously affording weight and relevancy to Appellant's arrest, which we deem harmless error.”
Establishes the court's primary holding that the revocation was supported by sufficient evidence despite trial court errors.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHaygood was on community control and was charged with violating the terms of his supervision. The trial court found violations based on assault and ba…
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 Delegation Of Judicial Authority cases and more on FLexlaw
STEVENSON, Judge.
Appellant’s judgment and sentence are affirmed. Ample evidence supports the trial court’s conclusion that Appellant violated community control, notwithstanding that the record does contain a misstatement by the court, erroneously affording weight and relevancy to Appellant’s arrest, which we deem harmless error. We have considered In re L.S., 553 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989), but deem it inapposite.
Although we find error in the court’s considering the charge that Appellant violated probation for failing to pay $250 court costs in accordance with the terms of a payment schedule prepared by the Department of Corrections, we nevertheless affirm, as there were other grounds upon which the trial court could, and did, find that appellant violated the terms of his community control. Moreover, it is clear that the trial court would have revoked based solely on the proper violations — an assault and battery and failure to pay costs of supervision.
The establishment of a payment schedule for court costs is a judicial responsibility that cannot be delegated to a probation officer. See Tracy v. State, 673 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). The state argues that section 948.09(7), Florida Statutes (1995), permits courts to delegate to the Department of Corrections the responsibility of establishing a payment schedule. The statute reads:
948.09 Payment for cost of supervision and rehabilitation
(7) The department shall establish a payment plan for all costs ordered by the courts for collection by the department. ...
Although this statute provides that the Department of Corrections shall establish a payment plan for “all costs,” nowhere does the statute’s provisions allude to costs other than for supervision or rehabilitation. Court costs are not referenced at all in the statute. It appears that the payment plan that the DOC is allowed to establish relates to the payment of monies due and owing to the state and not to a separate governmental entity, such as a county. Thus, in the context of the statute, “all costs” refers to all costs for supervision and rehabilitation, not any and all costs that the trial court might decide to tack onto the probation or community control order. Penal statutes are to be strictly construed, and when language is susceptible to differing constructions, it must be construed in the manner most favorable to the accused. § 775.021(1), Fla. Stat. (1995); Scates v. State, 603 So. 2d 504 (Fla.1992).
STONE and WARNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. State, 705 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…d, we affirm the order on this ground as the court’s statements at the hearing demonstrate that it would have revoked Smith’s community control based on this violation alone — failure to remain confined to his residence. See, e.g., Haygood v. State, 687 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Wilson v. State, 506 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). However, it is not clear whether the court would have imposed the same sentence based solely on that violation. See Smith v. State, 664 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Astore v.…
-
Thomas v. State, 159 So. 3d 937 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…conditions due to his incarceration on unrelated charges during the last three months of the probationary period”). We nevertheless affirm the revocation of his probation for committing the new offense of aggravated battery. See Haygood v. State, 687 So. 2d 318, 319 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (affirming revocation of probation where the record was clear that the trial court would have still revoked probation solely on the proper violations of community control). The State concedes that the trial court erred by…
-
Ogletree v. State, 886 So. 2d 420 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…CA 1999). Nevertheless, because we conclude that the other two violations were supported by competent, substantial evidence and supported the revocation of community control, we affirm the revocation and the sentences imposed. See Hay-good v. State, 687 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (striking portion of order revoking community control because some violations were not supported by evidence, but affirming revocation because it was clear trial court would have revoked community control based solely on proper v…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Carrick A. Scates v. State, 603 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 1992)
- Tracy v. State, 673 So. 2d 544 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- In the Interest of L.S., 553 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)