MILTON THOMPSON, 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.
Thompson appealed the revocation of his probation, challenging the trial court's failure to specify which probation conditions were violated and the sufficiency of evidence for certain alleged violations. The court reversed and remanded, finding that while some violations (failure to file reports and failure to obtain drug evaluation) were established, the court must reconsider on remand whether revocation was warranted based solely on these violations, and must make findings regarding Thompson's ability to pay supervision costs.
The court held that revocation must be reversed and remanded because: (1) the record does not reflect which violations the trial court found to have occurred; (2) while failure to file reports and failure to obtain drug evaluation were substantial violations, the court must reconsider whether revocation was warranted based only on these violations; (3) regarding payment violations, the trial court must make findings about Thompson's ability to pay; and (4) revocation based on law violations cannot rest solely on proof of arrest without establishing actual violation of the probation conditions.
[1] A trial court must recite which conditions of probation it finds to have been violated when revoking probation.
[2] Failure to file monthly reports with a probation officer is a sufficient ground for revocation.
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“failure to file monthly reports is a sufficient ground for revocation”
Establishes that failure to file reports constitutes a substantial violation supporting revocation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThompson was on probation with multiple conditions including filing monthly reports, paying supervision costs and court costs, obtaining a drug evalua…
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 Supervision Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from the revocation of appellant’s probation. We reverse and remand.
At the probation hearing, the trial court did not recite which conditions of probation it found to have been violated; and the only written orders are appellant’s two sentences, neither of which recite which conditions were violated. See Larangera v. State, 686 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
The two amended affidavits in appellant’s separate cases alleged violation of the following six conditions: 1) failing to file monthly reports with his probation officer; 2) failing to pay $50 per month in supervision costs; 3) failing to make any payments toward $255 in costs; 4) failing to obtain a drug evaluation within ten days of his release; 5) violating the law by committing an assault and battery; and 6) violating the law by opposing police officers in the execution of a legal duty.
Taking the violations individually, this court has held that failure to file monthly reports is a sufficient ground for revocation. Warren v. State, 499 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). Failure to report for a mandatory drug evaluation is as serious a violation as failing to file a written monthly report. Therefore those violations are clearly substantial. We find there was sufficient evidence presented for the trial court to find that the failure to file reports and obtain the drug evaluation were also willful violations, either of which warranted revocation.
With respect to the second and third violations, the only issue raised by appellant is that the trial court failed to make a finding regarding his ability to pay. On remand the trial court is directed to make such finding.
Finally, as to the fifth and sixth violations, revocation of probation based on violating conditions related to living in conformity with the law is improper when based solely on proof of the probationer’s arrest. Manies v. State, 621 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)(citing Hines v. State, 358 So. 2d 183 (Fla.1978)). Here, the evidence that appellant was arrested was insufficient to establish that he violated the law in violation of the terms of his probation.
In conclusion, the record does not reflect whether the trial court would have revoked appellant’s probation based only on appellant’s failure to file monthly reports and failure to report for drug screening. We therefore remand for the trial court to make a determination of whether appellant had the ability to pay regarding the second and third alleged violations involving his failure to pay costs, and to reconsider revocation of probation based on the established violations with respect to the first four. See Antoine v. State, 684 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
GLICKSTEIN, WARNER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hines v. State, 358 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 1978)
- Larangera v. State, 686 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Donnie Warren v. State, 499 So. 2d 55 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Manies v. State, 621 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Antoine v. State, 684 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)