Hammond v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hammond v. State

679 So. 2d 347, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 9277, 1996 WL 497006

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 4, 1996

DocketNo. 95-3465

StatusPublished

This text of 679 So. 2d 347 (Hammond 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

Hammond v. State, 679 So. 2d 347, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 9277, 1996 WL 497006 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was on felony probation. He pled guilty to violating his probation in two ways — not filing his monthly reports for three months and failing to pay the costs of [348]*348supervision. Contrary to Allen v. State, 662 So.2d 380 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), the trial court made no finding of appellant’s financial ability to pay the costs of supervision, and was therefore prohibited from violating appellant’s probation on this ground. We cannot tell from this record whether the trial court would have imposed the same sentence had the violation regarding monthly reports been considered alone. See Jess v. State, 384 So.2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). On remand, the trial court may reconsider the sentence in light of the one violation and, if necessary, hold a hearing addressing the Allen issue.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

GLICKSTEIN, FARMER and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was on felony probation. He pled guilty to violating his probation in two ways — not filing his monthly reports for three months and failing to pay the costs of [348]*348supervision. Contrary to Allen v. State, 662 So.2d 380 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995), the trial court made no finding of appellant’s financial ability to pay the costs of supervision, and was therefore prohibited from violating appellant’s probation on this ground. We cannot tell from this record whether the trial court would have imposed the same sentence had the violation regarding monthly reports been considered alone. See Jess v. State, 384 So.2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). On remand, the trial court may reconsider the sentence in light of the one violation and, if necessary, hold a hearing addressing the Allen issue.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

GLICKSTEIN, FARMER and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

679 So. 2d 347, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 9277, 1996 WL 497006, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hammond-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack