NORRIS COLEMAN
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Coleman appealed the revocation of his probation and imposition of a twelve-year prison sentence. The District Court of Appeal affirmed the probation revocation and sentence but remanded with instructions to strike violations related to failure to pay restitution and costs because the record did not establish Coleman's ability to pay.
The court affirmed the probation revocation and twelve-year sentence but remanded with instructions to strike the findings of violations for failure to pay restitution and costs (counts 2 and 3) because the record did not demonstrate Coleman's ability to pay those costs.
[1] A trial court may not find a probation violation based on failure to pay restitution or court costs without a record demonstrating the defendant's ability to pay such amo…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“we remand with instructions for the trial court to strike the violations for failure to pay restitution and court costs because the record does not demonstrate that appellant had the ability to pay those costs”
Establishes the core holding that probation violations for failure to pay must be supported by evidence of ability to pay
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe State filed an affidavit alleging eleven probation violations against Coleman, including three counts for failure to pay restitution and costs, si…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Willful And Substantial Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The state filed an affidavit alleging eleven counts of appellant’s having violated his probation. Three of the counts related to failure to pay restitution and costs (counts 1-3), six counts related to fleeing from the police in a car chase (counts 4-9), and two counts related to aggravated child abuse (counts 10-11). The trial court found willful and substantial violations for all of the counts except counts 1, 8, and 9. As to those counts for which the court found willful and substantial violations, the court found that the failure to pay restitution and court costs did not warrant a prison sentence (counts 2-3). However, the court found that the car chase and child abuse (counts 4-7 and 10-11) did warrant a prison sentence and sentenced appellant to twelve years in prison for the robbery offense underlying appellant’s probation.
We affirm the order revoking appellant’s probation and imposing sentence. However, we remand with instructions for the trial court to strike the violations for failure to pay restitution and court costs because the record does not demonstrate that appellant had the ability to pay those costs. See Del Valle v. State, 80 So. 3d 999, 1011 (Fla. 2011); Allen v.
2
State, 464 So. 2d 256, 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Because the trial court expressly stated that the violation for those two counts did not warrant a prison sentence and that its sentence was based on the other violations, “it is clear from the record that the trial court would have revoked probation and imposed the same sentence based solely upon the remaining counts . . . .” Mata v. State, 31 So. 3d 257, 260 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). Therefore, we affirm the order revoking probation but remand for the trial court to strike its findings of violations for counts 2 and 3.
Affirmed and remanded. LEVINE, FORST, JJ., and ARTAU, EDWARD L., Associate Judge, concur.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bevans v. State, 291 So. 3d 591 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)…ation of probation affidavit, which included financial violations. We therefore remand for the trial court to correct the scrivener’s error by striking that portion of the order finding violations for the financial conditions. Coleman v. State, 276 So. 3d 812, 813 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019). Finally, appellant challenges the imposition of $200 in prosecution costs. Imposing costs of prosecution involves a question of statutory interpretation, which is reviewed de novo. D.A. v. State, 11 So. 3d 423, 4…
Authorities Cited
- del Valle v. State, 80 So. 3d 999 (Fla. 2011)
- Mata v. State, 31 So. 3d 257 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Allen v. State, 464 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)