MITCHELL FRIDDLE, 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.
Mitchell Friddle appeals the trial court's revocation of his probation based on failure to pay restitution and alleged contact with a co-defendant. The appellate court reversed, finding the trial court failed to determine Friddle's ability to pay restitution and presented no evidence of contact with the co-defendant.
The trial court's revocation of probation was improper on both grounds: reversal was required because the court failed to find that Friddle had the ability to pay restitution, and the court abused its discretion in revoking probation for alleged co-defendant contact when no evidence of such contact was introduced.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion when revoking probation for failure to pay restitution without a finding that the probationer had the ability to pay.
[2] A trial court necessarily exercises discretion when deciding whether a probationer has violated a condition of probation.
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“[r]evoking probation for failure to pay costs without a finding that the probationer had the ability to pay requires reversal.”
Establishes the controlling precedent that ability to pay must be determined before revoking probation for failure to pay restitution
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFriddle was on probation with conditions including payment of restitution and a no-contact provision with his co-defendant and victims. The trial cour…
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 Restitution cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1255] PER CURIAM.
Mitchell Friddle appeals an order by which the trial court revoked Friddle’s probation on the grounds that he failed to pay restitution as ordered by the terms of probation and that he violated the condition that he have no contact with his co-defendant. Because the trial court failed to find that appellant had an ability to pay the restitution and because the record fails to demonstrate that appellant had contact with a co-defendant, we reverse.
A trial court necessarily exercises discretion when deciding whether a probationer has violated a condition of probation, warranting return to jail or prison. See State v. Carter, 835 So. 2d 259, 262 (Fla.2002) (“The trial court has broad discretion to determine whether there has been a willful and substantial violation of a term of probation....”). In reviewing a revocation of probation, “the appellate court must determine whether or not the trial court acted in an arbitrary, fanciful or unreasonable manner in determining that [the probationer’s] violation was both willful and substantial.” Id As we have previously explained, “[r]evoking probation for failure to pay costs without a finding that the probationer had the ability to pay requires reversal.” Martin v. State, 937 So. 2d 714, 716 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Smith v. State, 892 So. 2d 513, 514 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Here, the trial court did not make a specific finding as to appellant’s ability to pay restitution. Accordingly, reversal is required on this ground.
As for the other ground on which probation was revoked, condition 18 of appellant’s probation provides: “You will HAVE NO CONTACT WITH CODE-FENDANT OR VICTIMS IN THIS CASE during the period of supervision.” (Emphasis in original). There was no evidence introduced below that Friddle made contact directly or indirectly with the co-defendant. Accordingly, the trial court abused its discretion in revoking probation on this ground. See Carter. We therefore reverse and remand this cause to the trial court to withdraw the order revoking probation and to set aside the sentence.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
BARFIELD, VAN NORTWICK, and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
del Valle v. State, 80 So. 3d 999 (Fla. 2011)…ion for failure to pay supervisory costs, the revocation of Appellant’s probation based on the alleged violation of Condition (2) constitutes fundamental error. Hobson[ v. State], 908 So. 2d [1162,] 1164 [ (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) ]. In Friddle v. State, 989 So. 2d 1254, 1255 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), we held that revoking the defendant’s probation based on his failure to pay restitution, without a specific finding that he had the ability to pay, compelled reversal. For the same rea [*1010] son, the finding that Appella…
-
Odom v. State, 15 So. 3d 672 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…ationer willfully violated [*679] probation for failure to pay supervisory costs, the revocation of Appellant’s probation based on the alleged violation of Condition (2) constitutes fundamental error. Hobson, 908 So. 2d at 1164. In Friddle v. State, 989 So. 2d 1254, 1255 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), we held that revoking the defendant’s probation based on his failure to pay restitution, without a specific finding that he had the ability to pay, compelled reversal. For the same reason, the finding that Appellant willfu…
-
Thompson v. State, 250 So. 3d 132 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Carter, 835 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 2002)
- Martin v. State, 937 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Smith v. State, 892 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)