Deluca v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Deluca v. State

383 So. 2d 751, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16180

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 14, 1980

DocketNo. 78-2705

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 383 So. 2d 751 (Deluca 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

Deluca v. State, 383 So. 2d 751, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16180 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s probation was revoked for failure to pay costs of supervision, failure to pay costs of extradition, and failure to live and remain at liberty without violating any law. The last mentioned violation stems from the commission of a lewd and lascivious act and possession of stolen property. We find the evidence insufficient to establish that appellant was able to pay the costs of his supervision and extradition, and remand with direction that those violations be stricken from the order. Smith v. State, 380 So.2d 1175 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Porter v. State, 380 So.2d 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).

However, we conclude that appellant’s remaining points on appeal are without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the order revoking appellant’s probation in all other respects.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

BERANEK, GLICKSTEIN and HURLEY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s probation was revoked for failure to pay costs of supervision, failure to pay costs of extradition, and failure to live and remain at liberty without violating any law. The last mentioned violation stems from the commission of a lewd and lascivious act and possession of stolen property. We find the evidence insufficient to establish that appellant was able to pay the costs of his supervision and extradition, and remand with direction that those violations be stricken from the order. Smith v. State, 380 So.2d 1175 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Porter v. State, 380 So.2d 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).

However, we conclude that appellant’s remaining points on appeal are without merit. Accordingly, we affirm the order revoking appellant’s probation in all other respects.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

BERANEK, GLICKSTEIN and HURLEY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

383 So. 2d 751, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16180, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deluca-v-state-fladistctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack