BRADFORD WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Willful Failure To Pay cases and more on FLexlaw
The trial court extended and modified Appellant’s probation after finding that he violated probation by failing to make any' payments towards his substantial restitution obligation. We reverse because the trial court did not specifically find that Appellant had the ability to pay restitution and that he willfully failed to do so, and we . cannot infer such a finding from the trial court’s determination that Appellant violated his probation. See Del Valle v. State, 80 So.3d 999, 1011 (Fla.2011); Giambrone v. State, 109 So.3d 1279, 1280 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). Because we are unable to determine whether the trial court would have imposed the same sentence for the other violation found by the court, we remand for further proceedings. See Marzendorfer v. State, 16 So.3d 957, 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009).
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings.
WOLF, WETHERELL, and BILBREY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kimmons v. State, 267 So. 3d 1082 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)…d Mr. Kimmons’ probation based solely on his conviction of the new offense. However, it is not clear from the record whether the court would have imposed the same five-year sentence based only upon the new law violation. See Williams v. State, 165 So. 3d 870 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). Accordingly, upon remand, the trial court shall also determine whether it would have entered the same sentence upon the violations found by the court, and if not, conduct further proceedings accordingly. AFFIRMED in pa…
-
Patricia Ann Banks v. State, 262 So. 3d 876 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)…ng costs if she wished, but she did not. As such, the requirement to pay costs remained in place, and Banks cannot have her probation revoked for failing to pay costs unless the court finds that she has the ability to pay. See Williams v. State, 165 So. 3d 870 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015); Crowley v. State, 124 So. 3d 434, 436 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). The dissent agrees that “it is true that ‘will’ or ‘shall’ is generally mandatory and ‘may’ is generally permissive,” but believes that we should look to the context…
Authorities Cited
- del Valle v. State, 80 So. 3d 999 (Fla. 2011)
- Marzendorfer v. State, 16 So. 3d 957 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- Giambrone v. State, 109 So. 3d 1279 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)