Eullett v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Eullett v. State

507 So. 2d 736, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1294, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8343

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 20, 1987

DocketNo. 4-86-1877

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 507 So. 2d 736 (Eullett 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

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

Pincite

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Defendant’s probation was revoked based on a warrant charging that he failed to submit monthly reports, failed to follow instructions, and failed to pay costs of supervision.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

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Defendant’s probation was revoked based on a warrant charging that he failed to submit monthly reports, failed to follow instructions, and failed to pay costs of supervision.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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

507 So. 2d 736, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1294, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eullett-v-state-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack