From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hartman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Mar 14, 1990
557 So. 2d 961 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

Opinion

No. 89-1327.

March 14, 1990.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Broward County, Thomas M. Coker, Jr., J.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender and Cherry Grant, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee and David D. McLauchlin, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.


Appellant seeks review of the trial court's order revoking his community control and imposing court costs. We affirm the revocation of community control but reverse and remand as to the imposition of costs.

The purposes of an informal revocation hearing are to satisfy the conscience of the court that a condition has been violated and to offer the accused an opportunity to respond to the accusation. Holmes v. State, 311 So.2d 780 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). The trial court's conscience was satisfied that appellant violated a condition of his community control that he remain confined to his home except during specific time frames and that due process requirements were met. We agree and affirm the revocation of probation.

However, the trial court erred in assessing costs without a hearing. Mays v. State, 519 So.2d 618 (Fla. 1988); Jenkins v. State, 444 So.2d 947 (Fla. 1984). We therefore, reverse and remand for a hearing on costs.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART.

DELL, WALDEN and POLEN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Hartman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Mar 14, 1990
557 So. 2d 961 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)
Case details for

Hartman v. State

Case Details

Full title:KEVIN HARTMAN, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Mar 14, 1990

Citations

557 So. 2d 961 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

Citing Cases

Edwards v. State

This is enough to satisfy the conscience of a trial court that a defendant violated the terms of probation.…