Seders v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Seders v. State

700 So. 2d 126, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 11454, 1997 WL 614510

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 8, 1997

DocketNo. 96-01846

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 700 So. 2d 126 (Seders 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

Seders v. State, 700 So. 2d 126, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 11454, 1997 WL 614510 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Wallace S. Seders appeals the revocation of his probation. We affirm the revocation, but strike the findings regarding several probation conditions.

Seders contends that he cannot be found to have violated the conditions requiring payment of certain costs because the payment schedule was established by the probation officer, not by the court. We agree. “The establishment of a payment schedule for court costs is a judicial responsibility that cannot be delegated to a probation officer.” Haygood v. State, 687 So.2d 318, 319 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). See also McClough v. State, 669 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Moore v. State, 623 So.2d 795 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Therefore, we conclude that the trial court erred by finding that Seders violated conditions J, L, T and U by failing to meet the payment schedule imposed by the probation officer. Nevertheless, because the evidence does support the findings that Seders violated conditions 2, N and V, the revocation of probation is affirmed.

Affirmed.

ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and FULMER and QUINCE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Wallace S. Seders appeals the revocation of his probation. We affirm the revocation, but strike the findings regarding several probation conditions.

Seders contends that he cannot be found to have violated the conditions requiring payment of certain costs because the payment schedule was established by the probation officer, not by the court. We agree. “The establishment of a payment schedule for court costs is a judicial responsibility that cannot be delegated to a probation officer.” Haygood v. State, 687 So.2d 318, 319 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). See also McClough v. State, 669 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Moore v. State, 623 So.2d 795 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Therefore, we conclude that the trial court erred by finding that Seders violated conditions J, L, T and U by failing to meet the payment schedule imposed by the probation officer. Nevertheless, because the evidence does support the findings that Seders violated conditions 2, N and V, the revocation of probation is affirmed.

Affirmed.

ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and FULMER and QUINCE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

700 So. 2d 126, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 11454, 1997 WL 614510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/seders-v-state-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack