Crawford v. State

785 So. 2d 666, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 6173, 2001 WL 484559
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Crawford v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 823 So. 2d 832
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 9, 2001·No. No. 3D00-3349·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Brian Keith Crawford appeals an order revoking his probation. It is clear that defendant-appellant Crawford failed to report for a number of months and failed to pay costs of supervision in the amount of $25 per month. The revocation is affirmed on that basis.

The record appears to be clear that the defendant did not have the ability to pay the court costs and restitution amount. [667]*667See § 948.06(5), Fla. Stat. (2000); Word v. State, 533 So.2d 893 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). We therefore strike those findings of the trial court.

Given the trial court’s remarks at sentencing, it is quite clear that striking two of the grounds for revocation would have made no difference in the sentence imposed. That being so, there is no need for resentencing.

Affirmed as modified.

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

Crawford v. State, 785 So. 2d 666, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 6173, 2001 WL 484559 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

785 So. 2d 666 (Crawford v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Word v. State
533 So. 2d 893 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)