Tracy v. State

673 So. 2d 544, 1996 WL 252851
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMay 15, 1996
Docket95-0386
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 673 So. 2d 544 (Tracy 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
Tracy v. State, 673 So. 2d 544, 1996 WL 252851 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

673 So.2d 544 (1996)

Patrick TRACY, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 95-0386.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 15, 1996.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Karen E. Ehrlich, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Elliot B. Kula, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the revocation of appellant's community control. First, the order which he allegedly violated required him to pay costs at a rate per month to be determined "through the Department of Corrections." The amount of restitution cannot be delegated by the court to a probation officer. See e.g., Goodling v. State, 482 So.2d 594 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). That principle has been applied to costs and fees. Moore v. State, 623 So.2d 795 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Second, because the order placing him on community control did not specify either a payment schedule or a time limit for paying costs and fees, or a time limit for completing community service, appellant had the entire time of his probation in which to do so. See *545 Young v. State, 566 So.2d 69 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). This revocation, which occurred before the term was up, was thus improper.

In addition, the state concedes error in that the written order which found seven grounds for revocation does not conform to the oral pronouncement which found only three. We find no error in the other grounds for revocation, but remand for reconsideration in light of our conclusion that one of the grounds was improper. See Durden v. State, 577 So.2d 640 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).

KLEIN, PARIENTE and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Shepard v. State
939 So. 2d 311 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
S.R. v. State
925 So. 2d 474 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
Shipman v. State
903 So. 2d 386 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
Llumbet v. State
698 So. 2d 381 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
Haygood v. State
687 So. 2d 318 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)
Antoine v. State
684 So. 2d 266 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)
Mathis v. State
683 So. 2d 634 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
673 So. 2d 544, 1996 WL 252851, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tracy-v-state-fladistctapp-1996.