Cunningham v. State
575 So. 2d 1375, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 2211, 1991 WL 35027
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Cunningham v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 591 So. 2d 1058 →
Opinion
We affirm the appellant’s judgment and sentence imposed following violation of probation. We note, however, that the court made no finding that the appellant was able to pay the costs of supervision, one of the grounds upon which his probation was violated.
We therefore strike from the order of revocation any reference to condition number 2. See Rainey v. State, 528 So.2d 528 [1376]*1376(Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Reynolds v. State, 498 So.2d 607 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cunningham v. State, 575 So. 2d 1375, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 2211, 1991 WL 35027 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).
575 So. 2d 1375 (Cunningham v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Reynolds v. State
498 So. 2d 607 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
Rainey v. State
528 So. 2d 528 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)