Scott v. StateScott v. State
Appellant‘s probation was revoked because he failed to pay monthly cost of supervision fees and because he violated the law by failing to redeliver a hired vehicle. See
There was sufficient evidence to support the finding that appellant violated the law. The record is clear that the lower court would have revoked appellant‘s probation for this violation alone. See Sillett v. State, 393 So.2d 53 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Accordingly, the order revoking appellant‘s probation is AFFIRMED.
CAMPBELL and LEHAN, JJ., concur.