Abel v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Abel v. State

383 So. 2d 325, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16196

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 14, 1980

DocketNo. 79-794

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 383 So. 2d 325 (Abel v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Abel v. State, 383 So. 2d 325, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16196 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The court revoked appellant’s probation based on violations of four conditions of his probation, i. e., failure to file monthly reports with his probation supervisor, failure to pay $10.00 per month toward his supervision costs, changing his residence without his supervisor’s consent, and failure to work diligently at a lawful occupation and support his dependents to the best of his ability. The court had adjudicated appellant insolvent six weeks prior to his revocation hearing as well as one year before, just prior to his trial on the offense underlying the probation. At the revocation hearing, the state presented no evidence bearing on appellant’s ability to pay, nor did the court make a specific finding of ability.

Accordingly, the finding of violation of the condition requiring appellant to contribute $10.00 per month toward the costs of his supervision is stricken from the order of revocation. Coxon v. State, 365 So.2d 1067 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). The order, judgment, and sentence are affirmed in all other respects.

GRIMES, C. J., and HOBSON and SCHEB, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The court revoked appellant’s probation based on violations of four conditions of his probation, i. e., failure to file monthly reports with his probation supervisor, failure to pay $10.00 per month toward his supervision costs, changing his residence without his supervisor’s consent, and failure to work diligently at a lawful occupation and support his dependents to the best of his ability. The court had adjudicated appellant insolvent six weeks prior to his revocation hearing as well as one year before, just prior to his trial on the offense underlying the probation. At the revocation hearing, the state presented no evidence bearing on appellant’s ability to pay, nor did the court make a specific finding of ability.

Accordingly, the finding of violation of the condition requiring appellant to contribute $10.00 per month toward the costs of his supervision is stricken from the order of revocation. Coxon v. State, 365 So.2d 1067 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). The order, judgment, and sentence are affirmed in all other respects.

GRIMES, C. J., and HOBSON and SCHEB, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

383 So. 2d 325, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/abel-v-state-fladistctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack