Schrader v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Schrader v. State

782 So. 2d 967, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 4774, 2001 WL 357015

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 11, 2001·No. No. 3D00-2450·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the order revoking defendant’s probation for failure to submit to urinalysis upon the probation officer’s request. See Manon v. State, 740 So.2d 1253, 1256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)(whether probationer’s violation is willful and substantial is question of fact; trial court’s determination will not be overturned unless there is no supporting evidence). However, we strike that portion of the order finding that defendant violated probation by failing to pay costs of supervision. As the state properly concedes, the court granted defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal as to that alleged violation.

Affirmed as modified.

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 for failure to submit to urinalysis upon the probation officer’s request. See Manon v. State, 740 So.2d 1253, 1256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)(whether probationer’s violation is willful and substantial is question of fact; trial court’s determination will not be overturned unless there is no supporting evidence). However, we strike that portion of the order finding that defendant violated probation by failing to pay costs of supervision. As the state properly concedes, the court granted defendant’s motion for judgment of acquittal as to that alleged violation.

Affirmed as modified.

Schrader v. State, 782 So. 2d 967, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 4774, 2001 WL 357015 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

782 So. 2d 967 (Schrader v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related