Del Valle v. State
80 So. 3d 999
| Fla. | 2011Background
- Del Valle, indigent, was placed on probation with restitution and costs obligations after cocaine possession and grand theft charges.
- Affidavits alleged Del Valle failed to pay restitution and costs; probation officers testified he was arrears and unemployed.
- Trial court ordered boot camp as a condition of probation and extended the probation term; restitution payments were discussed in court.
- Third District affirmed, aligning with Guardado/Gonzales line that State bears no explicit ability-to-pay inquiry as to willfulness.
- This Florida Supreme Court granted review to resolve conflicts with Second, Fourth, and Fifth Districts on pay-ability, willfulness, and burden of proof in probation-revocation for nonpayment.
- Court ultimately held that proportional due process requires inquiry into ability to pay and a finding of willfulness; the State must prove willfulness with evidence of ability to pay, after which burden shifts to the probationer to prove inability to pay, but clear-and-convincing standard is unconstitutional.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must court inquire into ability to pay before revoking probation for nonpayment? | Del Valle argues Bearden/Stephens require inquiry and willfulness finding. | State contends burden-shifting statute suffices and no explicit inquiry required. | Yes; inquiry and willfulness finding required. |
| Is the burden-shifting scheme of 948.06(5) constitutional? | Del Valle argues clear-and-convincing burden on defendant is unconstitutional. | State argues burden-shifting is constitutionally permissible with initial willfulness showing by the State. | State burden to show willfulness is required; clear-and-convincing on defendant is unconstitutional. |
| Who bears the burden after willfulness is shown, and at what standard? | Del Valle asserts burden should not be on defendant or be too high; seeks constitutional balance. | State contends burden shifts to defendant to prove inability to pay. | Burden shifts to defendant to prove inability to pay, but not by clear-and-convincing standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (U.S. 1983) (probation cannot be revoked solely for inability to pay if no willful/nonpayment finding)
- Stephens v. State, 630 So.2d 1090 (Fla. 1994) (requires ability-to-pay finding before imprisonment for restitution on probation)
- Gonzales v. State, 909 So.2d 960 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) ( Third District decision cited by Del Valle conflicting with other districts)
- Guardado v. State, 562 So.2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (requires ability-to-pay finding before revoking probation for failure to pay)
- Shepard v. State, 939 So.2d 311 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (State bears burden to show ability to pay in probation revocation)
- Blackwelder v. State, 902 So.2d 905 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (probation-revocation nonpayment requires ability-to-pay evidence)
- Osta v. State, 880 So.2d 804 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (probation-revocation burden includes ability-to-pay evidence)