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 D2199d

KEVIN MOXEY, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. 4th District. Criminal law -- Probation -- Revocation -- Evidence insufficient to establish failure to comply with payment provisions -- Finding of violation of condition prohibiting moving without notification affirmed -- Remand for further proceedings where appellate court unable to determine whether trial court would impose same judgment and sentence based on single valid violation

KEVIN MOXEY, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. 4th District. Case No. 96-3129. Opinion filed September 17, 1997. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Ben L. Bryan, Jr., Judge; L.T. Case No. 92-909-CF. Counsel: Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Cherry Grant, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant. Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jeanine M. Germanowicz, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

(PER CURIAM.) The judgment and sentence founded on a violation of Appellant's probation are reversed. The state does not dispute that there was insufficient evidence of Appellant's failure to comply with the payment provisions in conditions 10 and 11, as Appellant did not miss a payment deadline nor was there a schedule of payments due. Melecio v. State, 662 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). As to the violation of condition 3, moving without notification, we affirm.

As we cannot determine whether the court would impose the same judgment and sentence based solely on a violation of condition 3, we remand for further proceedings. (STONE, C.J., POLEN and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.)

* * *