Eullett v. State

507 So. 2d 736, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1294, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8343
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 20, 1987·No. No. 4-86-1877·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Defendant’s probation was revoked based on a warrant charging that he failed to submit monthly reports, failed to follow instructions, and failed to pay costs of supervision. However, the trial court did not specify the basis for the revocation. Upon a review of the record, we conclude that the evidence supports revocation for failure to report, but does not support revocation for failure to pay costs of supervision. See Warren v. State, 499 So.2d 55 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). Because substantial testimony was devoted to the costs issue, we remand for such reconsideration and resentencing as the trial judge deems proper. We stress that the court may revoke probation and impose the same sentence, if so disposed. See Davis v. State, 474 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).

LETTS, WALDEN and STONE, JJ., concur.

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

Eullett v. State, 507 So. 2d 736, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1294, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8343 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

507 So. 2d 736 (Eullett v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

SETH CONNER WELLS vs STATE OF FLORIDA
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2023
Evins v. State
690 So. 2d 675 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)