Chappell v. StateChappell v. State
Additionally, the evidence supported the conclusion that appellant had failed to comply with a court-imposed condition that he comply with instructions given him by his probation supervisor, when he failed to comply with the supervisor‘s instruction to submit a list of employers to whom appellant had applied for work. Probation is a matter of legislative and judicial grace, and the burdens of compliance are slight compared to the alternative of imprisonment. Watkins v. State, 368 So.2d 363 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). The trial court found that appellant had violated his probation and we cannot hold him in error for doing so.
AFFIRMED.
SHARP and COWART, JJ., concur.