Lattimore v. State
This text of 433 So. 2d 56 (Lattimore 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.
Opinion
We vacate two of the three bases upon which defendant was found in violation of his probation because the state failed to demonstrate at the hearing: (a) that the defendant had willfully and not without fault failed to maintain employment, Chatman v. State, 365 So.2d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); and (b) that he had the financial ability to pay for the cost of his probationary supervision, Smith v. State, 373 So.2d 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). In all other respects, the order of revocation of probation and entry of judgment and sentence thereon are affirmed.
Affirmed as modified.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
433 So. 2d 56, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 20275, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lattimore-v-state-fladistctapp-1983.