Ward v. State, BO-292

Decision Date03 September 1987
Docket NumberNo. BO-292,BO-292
Citation511 So.2d 1109,12 Fla. L. Weekly 2132
Parties12 Fla. L. Weekly 2132 Willie WARD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Michael E. Allen, Public Defender and Phil Patterson, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, and John W. Tiedemann, Asst. Attys. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

ERVIN, Judge.

The appellant appeals his final judgment and sentence, contending that the trial court erred in imposing, as a condition of probation, the requirement that the appellant pay child support per civil order. We hold that the trial court was justified in imposing such a condition, but that it erred in failing to make a determination of the appellant's ability to pay the ordered support.

The appellant was charged with aggravated battery by use of a deadly weapon on his estranged wife. He pled nolo contendere to the charge and was sentenced to six months' incarceration, followed by three years' probation. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court, upon ascertaining that the appellant was $3,000 behind on his child support payments, added as a condition of probation the requirement that he "[p]ay child support as per Civil Order."

The appellant argues that the condition requiring payment of child support is not reasonably related to the offense charged, and, therefore, is an invalid condition of probation. Section 948.03, Florida Statutes, however, expressly authorizes the sentencing court to impose nine conditions of probation in every case. In Bentley v. State, 411 So.2d 1361, 1365 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 419 So.2d 1195 (Fla.1982), the Fifth District held that the statute implies that there need be no relationship between these enumerated conditions and the particular crime for which the probationer stands convicted. One of the enumerated conditions, stated in section 948.03(1)(f), requires the probationer to "[s]upport his legal dependents to the best of his ability." The trial court's order, requiring the appellant to pay child support, is essentially synonymous with the obligation to support one's dependents. Because such a requirement can be imposed on any probationer under section 948.03, regardless of the crime charged, it is unnecessary that the condition of payment of child support be reasonably related to the appellant's conviction of aggravated battery with a deadly weapon.

We find that the trial court did err, however, in imposing a financial...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Brown v. US
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • August 27, 1990
    ...v. Pettis, 333 N.W.2d 717 (S.D.1983) (possession of marijuana) (and cases cited from six other jurisdictions). See Ward v. State, 511 So.2d 1109 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1987) (statute requiring probationers to support legal dependents); Dorsey v. State, 145 Ga.App. 750, 245 S.E.2d 31 (1978) (same)......
  • State v. Shaver
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • August 25, 1988
    ...are a legitimate condition to be considered as part of probation. State v. Pettis (S.D.1983), 333 N.W.2d 717; see also Ward v. State (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1987), 511 So.2d 1109; Dorsey v. State (1978), 145 Ga.App. 750, 245 S.E.2d 31 (cases where states have specific provisions providing for impo......
  • Navarre v. State, 91-3880
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • November 10, 1992
    ...So.2d 397, 398 (1st DCA), rev. den., 593 So.2d 1052 (Fla.1991); Cumbie v. State, 597 So.2d 946, 947 (Fla.1st DCA 1992); Ward v. State, 511 So.2d 1109 (Fla.1st DCA 1987). See also Larson v. State, 572 So.2d 1368, 1371 (Fla.1991) (absent an objection, defendant may appeal a condition of proba......
  • State v. McCrimon
    • United States
    • Nebraska Court of Appeals
    • March 20, 2007
    ...233 Mont. 438, 760 P.2d 1230 (1988), modified on other grounds, State v. Licht, 266 Mont. 123, 879 P.2d 670 (1994); Ward v. State, 511 So.2d 1109 (Fla.App.1987); State v. Pettis, 333 N.W.2d 717 In the present case, the trial court imposed the probation condition that McCrimon make minimum c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT