LOG IN
    SELECT A PUBLICATION:
Florida Law Weekly
FLW Supplement
FLW Federal
User Name:
Password:
 


CONTACT
    Toll-free: 800-351-0917
    E-mail us
    Submit Opinions

PLACE AN ORDER
    Print Editions
    Online Editions
    Bound Volumes
    2/24-Hour Online Access


OUR PUBLICATIONS
    Florida Law Weekly
    FLW Supplement
    FLW Federal
    Collected Cases
    Sample FLW Online


RESEARCH
    Cross Citations
    Week In Review
    Rule Revisions
    Review Granted
    Current Issue Index
     Civil Section
     Criminal Section
    2023 Cumulative Index
     Civil Section
     Criminal Section
    Public Reprimands
    Florida Statutes
    Helpful Links



  
22 Fla. L. Weekly D2183b

YADIRA JIMENEZ, Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. 3rd District. Criminal law -- Probation revocation -- Probation properly revoked based on grand theft and failure to participate in TASC program -- Provision of order finding failure to pay costs as additional ground for revocation inconsistent with oral pronouncement that state did not prove defendant's ability to pay costs

YADIRA JIMENEZ, Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 97-241. L.T. Case No. 95-9283. Opinion filed September 17, 1997. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Dade County, Leslie B. Rothenberg, Judge. Counsel: Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Rosa C. Figarola, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant. Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Joni Braunstein, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

(Before COPE, LEVY and SHEVIN, JJ.)

(PER CURIAM.) We affirm the order revoking defendant's probation based on commission of grand theft and failure to participate in the TASC program. However, as the state properly concedes, the order is inconsistent with the trial court's oral pronouncement that the state did not prove defendant's ability to pay costs. Cushion v. State, 637 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). Accordingly, we remand this cause to the trial court with instructions to strike from the order defendant's failure to pay costs as an additional ground for revocation. This modification does not require the presence of the defendant.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

* * *