TAUREAN JAMAAL BROWN, 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.
The court held that while the evidence was insufficient to prove a violation of the condition to pay supervision costs, the revocation of probation was still proper based on a new law violation.
[1] A trial court must find that a probationer has the ability to pay before revoking probation for failure to pay the cost of supervision.
[2] Evidence of a single drug transaction is insufficient to prove a probationer's ability to pay accrued supervision costs when the probationer is unemployed and has other m…
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 intelligenceTaurean Jamaal Brown appealed the revocation of his probation for driving while license suspended. The trial court found violations of probation condi…
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
Taurean Jamaal Brown appeals the revocation of his probation for driving while license suspended or revoked as a habitual traffic offender. We affirm the revocation of probation and resulting sentence but remand for the trial court to strike the finding of a violation of condition 2 from the revocation order.
The evidence presented at the revocation hearing was sufficient to prove that Brown violated conditions 4 and 50 of his probation, which included the new law violation of sale of cocaine. However, before finding that Brown violated condition 2, failure to pay the cost of supervision, the trial court was required to find that Brown had the ability to make the required payments. See Neves v. State, 502 So.2d 1343, 1344 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Coxon v. State, 365 So.2d 1067, 1068 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).
At the revocation hearing, the probation officer testified that Brown had other monetary obligations in addition to the cost of supervision and that Brown was unemployed. Further, Brown had been declared indigent for the revocation proceedings. The trial court found that Brown had failed to pay his cost of supervision of $80 that had accrued as of June 30, 2004. The trial court found that Brown “had money” because he got $80 when he sold the cocaine to an undercover detective on June 15, 2004. Based on the evidence that Brown was unemployed and had other monetary obligations in connection with his probation, the evidence that he received $80 in an undercover drug deal was insufficient to prove that he had the ability to pay the cost of supervision.
Nevertheless, we affirm the revocation of probation and sentence because the trial court would have revoked probation based on the new law violation alone. See Underwood v. State, 455 So.2d 1133, 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). We remand for the trial court to strike the finding of a violation of condition 2 from the revocation order. See id. at 1134.
Affirmed and remanded.
NORTHCUTT, C.J., and WHATLEY, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
del Valle v. State, 80 So. 3d 999 (Fla. 2011)…d that where the violation alleged by the State is a failure to pay costs or restitution, there must be evidence presented, and a finding of the trial court that the probationer had the ability to pay, but willfully did not do so.”); Brown v. State, 6 So. 3d 671, 672 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (“[B]efore finding that Brown violated condition 2, failure to pay the cost of supervision, the trial court was required to find that Brown had the ability to make the required payments.”); Shepard, 939 So. 2d at 314 (“[W]her…
-
Green v. State, 19 So. 3d 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…court to strike findings that defendant had violated conditions 1, 3, and 10 of probation but affirming revocation and sentences because defendant’s new law violation alone was substantial enough to warrant revocation of probation); Brown v. State, 6 So. 3d 671, 672 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (directing trial court to strike violation of condition 2 of probation but affirming revocation and sentence on remaining grounds “because the trial court would have revoked probation based on the new law violation alone”); M…
-
Kase v. State, 206 So. 3d 165 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…e revoked Mr. Ease’s probation based solely on the violation of condition 9. Thus we need not remand for the trial court to consider whether it would have revoked Mr. Ease’s probation based solely on the violation of condition 9. See Brown v. State, 6 So. 3d 671, 672 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (affirming an order revoking probation after determining one of the grounds for revocation was improper when it was clear that the trial court would have revoked the appellant’s probation on the remaining ground). According…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Coxon v. State, 365 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Underwood v. State, 455 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- Neves v. State, 502 So. 2d 1343 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)