Cherry v. State, 96-05053
| Citation | 718 So.2d 294 |
| Decision Date | 11 September 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-05053,96-05053 |
| Parties | 23 Fla. L. Weekly D2103 Deloris CHERRY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Joanna B. Conner, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and William I. Munsey, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
Deloris Cherry appeals the final judgment and sentence entered after the trial court revoked her probation in this welfare fraud case. We agree that the trial court erred by revoking Cherry's probation; therefore, we reverse the revocation of probation and sentence. Additionally, we direct the trial court to correct several scrivener's errors made in the final judgment of sentence.
The State charged Cherry with welfare fraud, a third-degree felony, in violation of section 409.325(1)(a)-(b), (5)(b), Florida Statutes (1987), for welfare fraud occurring from July 1, 1988 through April 30, 1990. Subsequently, Cherry pleaded no contest, and the trial court sentenced her to five years of probation, community service hours, and restitution in the amount of $5,295.55. Approximately one month before the end of Cherry's probation, the Department of Corrections filed an affidavit of violation of probation alleging that Cherry had violated special condition 13 of her probation by failing to pay $3,290.58 in restitution.
This case involves seven hearings on Cherry's alleged violation of probation. Cherry contended that her medical problems prevented her from working; therefore, she could not comply with the restitution condition of her probation. At the fourth hearing, a letter was presented to the court from Cherry's doctor stating, "I see no medical reason why she cannot be gainfully employed." During this same hearing, the trial court instructed Cherry to either get a job or produce evidence from another doctor indicating a legitimate reason why she cannot work. During the seventh hearing, Cherry produced a letter from her employer stating that she was currently employed thirty to forty hours a week at five dollars an hour. The trial court then decided that "[t]here's no reason why you cannot work, and there's no reason as far as I'm concerned that you couldn't have worked all along so you will be adjudicated." The trial court then revoked Cherry's probation and imposed six months of community control, followed by five years of probation with credit for time served.
When deciding whether to revoke probation for failure to pay restitution, "there must be a determination that the person has, or has had, the ability to pay but has willfully refused to do so." Stephens v. State, 630 So.2d 1090, 1091 (Fla.1994). The State presented evidence to the trial court indicating that Cherry was capable of being gainfully employed at the time of the fourth hearing, pursuant to the doctor's letter and that she was employed by the time of the seventh hearing. Howeve...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Samedi v. Miami-Dade County
... ... State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the ... ...
-
Doe v. Evans
... ... did not seek dismissal of the first two counts on the basis that those counts failed to state a cause of action under Florida law, nor did they request a more definite statement as 814 So.2d ... ...
-
Mabrey v. Florida Parole Com'n
...present evidence of the probationer's ability to pay. See Robinson v. State, 773 So.2d 566, 567 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Cherry v. State, 718 So.2d 294, 295 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Haynes v. State, 571 So.2d 1380, 1381 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). The parties agree that the rule announced in Stephens is appl......
-
Robinson v. State, 2D99-3799.
...be a determination that the person has, or has had, the ability to pay but has willfully refused to do so." See also Cherry v. State, 718 So.2d 294, 295 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). We interpret these cases as requiring the State to bring forth evidence of the probationer's ability to pay to demonst......