453 So. 2d 539 | Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 1984
Appellant’s probation was revoked on the basis of numerous alleged violations. Appellant maintains, and the state concedes, that no testimony was presented to support the allegations that appellant violated condition (11) of his probation by failing to contribute toward the cost of supervision, condition (14) by failing to pay court costs, and condition (15) by failing to make restitution. Consequently, we strike from the order revoking probation the findings that appellant violated the aforementioned conditions of probation.
Appellant’s other argument is without merit.
There was competent evidence to support the findings of the trial court that