Streeter v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Streeter v. State

385 So. 2d 7, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16620

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 25, 1980

DocketNo. 80-114

StatusPublished

This text of 385 So. 2d 7 (Streeter 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

Streeter v. State, 385 So. 2d 7, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16620 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court revoked appellant’s probation for failure to file monthly reports and to pay costs of supervision, and for changing his residence without consent of his probation officer. There was no evidence to show that appellant was able to pay costs of supervision; therefore, this violation must be stricken from the order. Coxon v. State, 365 So.2d 1067 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). We have reviewed the transcript of the revocation hearing, however, and have concluded that the trial court’s order was based primarily on appellant’s failure to file monthly reports and to obtain consent prior to changing his residence. Therefore, this case does not require a remand as in Tuff v. State, 338 So.2d 1335 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976).

Accordingly, we strike that part of the order revoking appellant’s probation for failure to pay costs; otherwise, we affirm.

HOBSON, Acting C. J., and SCHEB and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The trial court revoked appellant’s probation for failure to file monthly reports and to pay costs of supervision, and for changing his residence without consent of his probation officer. There was no evidence to show that appellant was able to pay costs of supervision; therefore, this violation must be stricken from the order. Coxon v. State, 365 So.2d 1067 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). We have reviewed the transcript of the revocation hearing, however, and have concluded that the trial court’s order was based primarily on appellant’s failure to file monthly reports and to obtain consent prior to changing his residence. Therefore, this case does not require a remand as in Tuff v. State, 338 So.2d 1335 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976).

Accordingly, we strike that part of the order revoking appellant’s probation for failure to pay costs; otherwise, we affirm.

HOBSON, Acting C. J., and SCHEB and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

385 So. 2d 7, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 16620, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/streeter-v-state-fladistctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack