Hartman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hartman v. State

557 So. 2d 961, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 1586, 1990 WL 26227

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 14, 1990

DocketNo. 89-1327

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 557 So. 2d 961 (Hartman 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

Hartman v. State, 557 So. 2d 961, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 1586, 1990 WL 26227 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of the trial court’s order revoking his community control and imposing court costs. We affirm the revocation of community control but reverse and remand as to the imposition of costs.

The purposes of an informal revocation hearing are to satisfy the conscience of the court that a condition has been violated and to offer the accused an opportunity to respond to the accusation. Holmes v. State, 311 So.2d 780 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). The trial court’s conscience was satisfied that appellant violated a condition of his community control that he remain confined to his home except during specific time frames and that due process requirements were met. We agree and affirm the revocation of probation.

However, the trial court erred m assessing costs without a hearing. Mays v. State, 519 So.2d 618 (Fla.1988); Jenkins v. State, 444 So.2d 947 (Fla.1984). We therefore, reverse and remand for a hearing on costs.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART.

DELL, WALDEN and POLEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of the trial court’s order revoking his community control and imposing court costs. We affirm the revocation of community control but reverse and remand as to the imposition of costs.

The purposes of an informal revocation hearing are to satisfy the conscience of the court that a condition has been violated and to offer the accused an opportunity to respond to the accusation. Holmes v. State, 311 So.2d 780 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). The trial court’s conscience was satisfied that appellant violated a condition of his community control that he remain confined to his home except during specific time frames and that due process requirements were met. We agree and affirm the revocation of probation.

However, the trial court erred m assessing costs without a hearing. Mays v. State, 519 So.2d 618 (Fla.1988); Jenkins v. State, 444 So.2d 947 (Fla.1984). We therefore, reverse and remand for a hearing on costs.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART.

DELL, WALDEN and POLEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

557 So. 2d 961, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 1586, 1990 WL 26227, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartman-v-state-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack