ANTWAN CONNER, 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.
Antwan Conner appealed the revocation of his probation and resulting ten-year sentence. The trial court found three probation violations, but the appellate court determined the State proved only one violation. The court affirmed the revocation based on the proven violation while reversing the erroneous findings regarding two unproven conditions.
The State proved only the violation of condition 1 (failure to submit monthly reports for three successive months) and did not prove willful and substantial violations of conditions 37 and 47 (payment conditions) due to lack of evidence that Conner was able to pay these costs. The probation revocation is affirmed based solely on the proven violation of condition 1.
[1] A probation violation must be willful and substantial to warrant revocation.
[2] A defendant's inability to pay fines or fees can preclude a finding of willful and substantial violation of probation conditions requiring payment.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“we are able to conclude that the trial court would have revoked Conner's probation based solely on the violation proven, we affirm”
Establishes the court's rationale for affirming despite finding two of three alleged violations were erroneous
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceConner was on probation subject to conditions including monthly truthful reporting to his probation officer, paying $50 in crimes compensation, and pa…
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 Probation Revocation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Antwan Conner appeals the trial court’s order revoking his probation and the resulting judgment and sentence of ten years’ imprisonment. The trial court found that Conner willfully and substantially violated three conditions of his probation. We conclude that the State proved only one of the three violations found by the trial court. However, because we are able to conclude that the trial court would have revoked Conner’s probation based solely on the violation proven, we affirm.
Conner argues that the State did not present sufficient evidence that he violated conditions 37 and 47 requiring him to pay “$50 Crimes Compensation” and “$150 Court Facilities Fund,” respectively. The State concedes that it did not prove willful and substantial violations of these conditions. We agree. There was no evidence that Conner was able to pay these costs. See Stephens v. State, 630 So. 2d 1090 (Fla.1994); Robinson v. State, 773 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). In fact, the only time conditions 37 and 47 were mentioned at the revocation hearing was when Conner’s probation officer recited the conditions she alleged were violated. Accordingly, the trial court erred in finding that these conditions were violated.
On appeal, Conner does not dispute that the State established that he violated condition 1, the remaining violation. Condition 1 stated: “Each month you will make a full and truthful report to your officer on the form provided for that purpose as instructed by your officer.” In support of the violation of this condition, the State proved that Conner failed to submit his written reports for three successive months. After a thorough review of the record, including the transcript of the revocation hearing, we have no doubt that the trial court would have revoked Conner’s probation based solely on his violation of condition 1. Therefore, we affirm the revocation order to the extent that it is based on Conner’s violation of condition 1.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions for the trial court to modify the order violating Conner’s probation by deleting the findings that Conner violated conditions 37 and 47.
ALTENBERND, C.J., and DAVIS and WALLACE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Stephens v. State, 630 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 1994)
- Robinson v. State, 773 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)