Pernice v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pernice v. State

744 So. 2d 596, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 15076, 1999 WL 1036297

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 17, 1999

DocketNo. 98-00509

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 744 So. 2d 596 (Pernice 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

Pernice v. State, 744 So. 2d 596, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 15076, 1999 WL 1036297 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Gary Pernice appeals an order revoking his probation and sentencing him to nine years’ imprisonment for three counts of grand theft. The State alleged two probation violations: a violation of special condition 4 based on Pernice’s failure to make a lump sum restitution payment of $500,000, and a violation of condition 3 based on Pernice engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. The trial court found Pernice in violation of both conditions. The record supports the court’s findings as to condition 3; however, the court erred by finding Pernice in violation of special condition 4 without first finding that Pern-ice had the financial ability to make the lump sum restitution payment. See McCoy v. State, 730 So.2d 803 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Accordingly, we affirm the revocation of Pernice’s probation, but remand with directions to remove the violation of condition 4 from the revocation order.

Affirmed in part; remanded with directions.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., NORTHCUTT, and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Gary Pernice appeals an order revoking his probation and sentencing him to nine years’ imprisonment for three counts of grand theft. The State alleged two probation violations: a violation of special condition 4 based on Pernice’s failure to make a lump sum restitution payment of $500,000, and a violation of condition 3 based on Pernice engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. The trial court found Pernice in violation of both conditions. The record supports the court’s findings as to condition 3; however, the court erred by finding Pernice in violation of special condition 4 without first finding that Pern-ice had the financial ability to make the lump sum restitution payment. See McCoy v. State, 730 So.2d 803 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Accordingly, we affirm the revocation of Pernice’s probation, but remand with directions to remove the violation of condition 4 from the revocation order.

Affirmed in part; remanded with directions.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., NORTHCUTT, and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

744 So. 2d 596, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 15076, 1999 WL 1036297, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pernice-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack