Carlos Del Valle, Petitioner v. State of Florida, Respondent — Lewis, J., Dissenting

Summary

Justice Lewis, dissenting, would uphold the statutory requirement that a probationer prove inability to pay restitution by clear and convincing evidence before avoiding revocation, after the State proves a willful violation. He reasoned that probation revocation proceedings provide fewer procedural protections than criminal trials and that defendants have multiple earlier opportunities to contest restitution and inability to pay. Justice Canady, dissenting separately, would also reject the majority's constitutional interpretation but would not decide the constitutionality of the clear-and-convincing standard and would find any failure to make an ability-to-pay finding harmless.