NICOLE RENEE HENDERSON, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed probation revocation based on new law violations but reversed the trial court's findings regarding nonpayment violations for failure to make explicit willfulness determinations.
A trial court must make explicit findings of willfulness before revoking probation based on nonpayment of fees and costs, even when evidence shows the defendant had the means to pay.
[1] A trial court must make explicit findings of willfulness before revoking probation based on nonpayment of court-ordered fees and costs, even when evidence demonstrates th…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Although the State presented evidence tending to show that Ms. Henderson had the means to pay, the trial court failed to make explicit findings of willfulness as required by the caselaw.”
Court's explanation of why the nonpayment violations were improper despite evidence of ability to pay
Nicole Renee Henderson's probation was revoked on six grounds: three for new law violations and three for nonpayment of fees and costs required by the…
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 Willfulness Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant Nicole Renee Henderson appeals the trial court’s order that revoked her probation on six different grounds, three related to new law violations and three for the nonpayment of sums required by the probation order. We affirm without comment the trial court’s finding that Ms. Henderson violated her probation by committing the new law violations. We conclude, however, that the trial court improperly found Ms. Henderson to have violated probation on the three grounds related to the nonpayment of certain fees and costs. Although the State presented evidence tending to show that Ms. Henderson had the means to pay, the trial court failed to make explicit findings of willfulness as required by the caselaw. See Del Valle v. State, 80 So.3d 999, 1011, 1015 (Fla.2011); Giambrone v. State, 109 So.3d 1279, 1280 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).
Because it is clear from the record that the trial court would have revoked Ms. Henderson’s probation based solely on her new law violations (probation condition five), we affirm the revocation of her probation. See Boyer v. State, 39 So.3d 374, 375 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010); Jenkins v. State, 24 So.3d 752 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). But we remand with instructions for the trial court to strike from the order the violations relating her nonpayment of financial obligations (probation condition ten).
BENTON, SWANSON, and OSTERHAUS, JJ. concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Contreras v. State, 2017 WL 2961117 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)
-
Fredrick J. Alonzo v. State, 210 So. 3d 72 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Young v. State, 141 So. 3d 161 (Fla.2013); Alonzo v. State, 151 So. 3d 1241 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (table decision); McDonald v. State, 133 So. 3d 630 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013); Doby v. State, 25 So. 3d 598 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Hughes v. State, 22 So. 3d 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Waiter v. State, 965 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Steward v. State, 931 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Shortridge v. State, 884…
Authorities Cited
- del Valle v. State, 80 So. 3d 999 (Fla. 2011)
- Giambrone v. State, 109 So. 3d 1279 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)
- Andril Lynette Jenkins v. State, 24 So. 3d 752 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- Boyer v. State, 39 So. 3d 374 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)