Page v. State
| Decision Date | 31 October 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. JJ-281,JJ-281 |
| Citation | 363 So.2d 621 |
| Parties | Gerald Wayne PAGE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Michael J. Minerva, Public Defender, and Louis G. Carres, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Richard W. Prospect, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Gerald Wayne Page's probation was revoked for failure to file timely monthly reports, failure to support dependents, and failure to make daily telephone contact with the parole supervisor pursuant to a requirement set by the supervisor.
Under the facts of this case, the requirement that Page file timely monthly reports was a court-imposed condition and Page admitted the untimely filings. Thus, this was a proper ground on which probation could be revoked.
As to the second reason, however, the failure to support dependents, we find that the record contains no showing that Page had the ability to support his dependents. Under the reasoning of Jones v. State, 360 So.2d 1158 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), we hold that revocation cannot be based on failure to support dependents unless there is evidence that the probationer had the ability to provide such support.
Finally, the requirement that Page make daily telephone contact with the probation supervisor was imposed by the supervisor and not by the court. We hold that probation may be revoked only for court-imposed conditions. Barber v. State, 344 So.2d 913 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).
In summary, we find that the revocation of probation could properly be based on the failure to file timely monthly reports, but could not properly be based on the other two grounds. We do not know if the trial court would revoke probation and impose the same sentence for the sole reason that Page failed to file timely monthly reports. We, therefore, reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bleasdale
...be violated except for a willful departure from the terms thereof. Chatman v. State, 365 So.2d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Page v. State, 363 So.2d 621 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); and Barber v. State, 344 So.2d 913 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)." (Emphasis added.) Id. Similarly, in this cause, appellant apparen......
-
Odom v. State
...supervisor; that is, "a probation officer cannot prescribe new conditions of probation." Hutchinson, 428 So.2d at 740; Page v. State, 363 So.2d 621 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). A comparison of the key facts and the language of the particular conditions demonstrates that Appellant's case law is mate......
-
Jordan v. State, 91-3609
...of probation sufficient to support revocation. McPherson v. State, 530 So.2d 1095, 1098-99 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Page v. State, 363 So.2d 621, 622 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Condition 1 of Jordan's probation order required her to submit her reports by the fifth day of each month, a condition with ......
-
Albritton v. State
...Clemons v. State, 388 So.2d 639, 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Peterson v. State, 384 So.2d 965, 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Page v. State, 363 So.2d 621, 622 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); McKeever v. State, 359 So.2d 905, 906 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). Respondent urges the contrary and would have a reviewing court......