Jimenez v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Jimenez v. State

698 So. 2d 1376, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 10590, 1997 WL 577569

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 17, 1997·No. No. 97-241·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the order revoking defendant’s probation based on commission of grand theft and failure to participate in the TASC program. However, as the state properly concedes, the order is inconsistent with the trial court’s oral pronouncement that the state did not prove defendant’s ability to pay costs. Cushion v. State, 637 So.2d 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). Accordingly, we remand this cause to the trial court with instructions to strike from the order defendant’s failure to pay costs as an additional ground for revocation. This modification does not require the presence of the defendant.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the order revoking defendant’s probation based on commission of grand theft and failure to participate in the TASC program. However, as the state properly concedes, the order is inconsistent with the trial court’s oral pronouncement that the state did not prove defendant’s ability to pay costs. Cushion v. State, 637 So.2d 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). Accordingly, we remand this cause to the trial court with instructions to strike from the order defendant’s failure to pay costs as an additional ground for revocation. This modification does not require the presence of the defendant.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Jimenez v. State, 698 So. 2d 1376, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 10590, 1997 WL 577569 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

698 So. 2d 1376 (Jimenez v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related