Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

391 So. 2d 343

Docket No. 79-1499/T4-646.

Suarez v. State

James V. SUAREZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided December 17, 1980.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1980-12-17

Relies on Barber v. State · Reeves v. State · 378 So. 2d 108 - Johnson v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1980-12-17

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently February 2007

6 state decisions

30198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender and Allen J. DeWeese, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

¶2Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee and Edwin H. Duff, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Daytona Beach, for appellee.

¶3*344 FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., Judge.

¶4Appellant appeals from an order revoking his probation for violation of conditions four and nine of the probation order.

¶5Condition four required appellant to live and remain at liberty without violating any law. Appellant was charged with two counts of violation of this condition. The court found one violation consisting of his failure to pay the cost of supervision.

¶6Payment of costs of supervision was not specifically made a part of the probation order. Only the court may set the conditions upon which probation may be revoked. Barber v. State,344 So.2d 913 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). Therefore the finding that appellant had violated condition four of the probation order was improper.

¶7Condition nine required appellant to pay a public defender lien at the rate of $50.00 per month. Appellant contends that the only evidence to support this violation consisted of hearsay. See Reeves v. State,366 So.2d 1229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). We find, however, that there was sufficient evidence to support the violations. Appellant's own admission that the lien had not been paid was sufficient. See Johnson v. State,378 So.2d 108 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).

¶8We affirm the order of the trial court as to appellant's violation of condition nine of the probation order but remand for correction of the order to delete the finding of a violation of condition four.

¶9REMANDED in part and AFFIRMED in part.

¶10SHARP and COWART, JJ., concur.

/391/so2d/343 · .json · Public domain