Hutchinson v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hutchinson v. State

801 So. 2d 291, 2001 WL 1580279

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 12, 2001

DocketNo. 1D00-3748

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 801 So. 2d 291 (Hutchinson 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

Hutchinson v. State, 801 So. 2d 291, 2001 WL 1580279 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal of the revocation of Appellant’s probation, the State concedes error. The State properly concedes that the failure to pay court costs imposed' in a probation order, in accordance with a payment schedule established by a probation officer, cannot furnish a basis to revoke probation, and the probationer has the entire probation term in which to pay costs. “ ‘The establishment of a payment schedule for court costs is a judicial responsibility that cannot be delegated to a probation officer.’” Seders v. State, 700 So.2d 126 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (citation omitted). See Antoine v. State, 684 So.2d 266 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (no matter how reasonable the payment schedule may be, or how derelict the probationer in failing to pay under its terms, if such schedule is not imposed by the court, then the probationer has the entire probation term to pay the costs.) See also Smith v. State, 738 So.2d 433 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); McCoy v. State, 730 So.2d 803 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

BOOTH, WEBSTER and PADOVANO, JJ„ CONCUR.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal of the revocation of Appellant’s probation, the State concedes error. The State properly concedes that the failure to pay court costs imposed' in a probation order, in accordance with a payment schedule established by a probation officer, cannot furnish a basis to revoke probation, and the probationer has the entire probation term in which to pay costs. “ ‘The establishment of a payment schedule for court costs is a judicial responsibility that cannot be delegated to a probation officer.’” Seders v. State, 700 So.2d 126 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (citation omitted). See Antoine v. State, 684 So.2d 266 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (no matter how reasonable the payment schedule may be, or how derelict the probationer in failing to pay under its terms, if such schedule is not imposed by the court, then the probationer has the entire probation term to pay the costs.) See also Smith v. State, 738 So.2d 433 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); McCoy v. State, 730 So.2d 803 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

BOOTH, WEBSTER and PADOVANO, JJ„ CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

801 So. 2d 291, 2001 WL 1580279, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hutchinson-v-state-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack