TERRY LEE REEVES, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Terry Lee Reeves appeals the revocation of his probation based on three alleged violations. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the revocation because the State's entire case rested on hearsay testimony from a probation officer with no first-hand knowledge of the facts, violating the requirement that probation cannot be revoked solely on hearsay evidence.
Probation may not be revoked solely on the basis of hearsay evidence. Although hearsay is admissible in revocation proceedings, the State must present some competent, non-hearsay evidence to support the revocation. Here, reversal is required because all evidence against Reeves was hearsay.
[1] Probation may not be revoked solely on the basis of hearsay evidence.
[2] Evidence of a criminal conviction subsequent to probation is a sufficient basis for revocation, provided it is properly charged and admitted.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“While hearsay is admissible in revocation proceedings, probation may not be revoked solely on the basis of hearsay.”
States the controlling legal principle that hearsay alone is insufficient to revoke probation despite its general admissibility in such proceedings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceReeves was charged with violating his probation in three ways: changing his approved residence without permission, failing to submit monthly reports f…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Sufficiency Of Evidence For Probation Revocation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
An affidavit and warrant were filed charging appellant with having violated his probation in three respects: (1) changing his approved residence without his supervisor’s permission, (2) failing to submit the required monthly reports for June through October 1976, and (3) failing to pay court costs imposed as a condition of his probation. The only evidence offered was the testimony of appellant’s probation officer, who was assigned to appellant following the dates of the alleged violations and who had no first-hand knowledge of the facts. He relied on the allegations of the affidavit and the written report of appellant’s previous probation officer, further noting that he had a certified copy of a judgment and sentence received by appellant for a motor vehicle theft in Georgia.
All of the evidence introduced against appellant was hearsay.1 While hearsay is admissible in revocation proceedings, probation may not be revoked solely on the basis of hearsay. Tuff v. State, 338 So. 2d 1335 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Combs v. State, 351 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).
Accordingly, the order revoking appellant’s probation and the judgment and sentence entered against him are reversed and the cause remanded with instructions to reinstate appellant’s probation.2
GRIMES, C. J., and SCHEB and OTT, JJ., concur. . While evidence of a criminal conviction subsequent to placement of a defendant on probation is a sufficient basis upon which to revoke probation, the evidence concerning appellant’s Georgia conviction was unavailing at the instant revocation hearing for two reasons: (1) It was not one of the violations charged in the affidavit or warrant, and (2) a certified copy of the judgment and sentence was not introduced into evidence at the hearing.
. This reversal does not, of course, bar a second revocation hearing based on the filing of a new affidavit alleging the same violations, Robbins v. State, 318 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); White v. State, 301 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Hampton v. State, 276 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973), or the initiation of new revocation proceedings based on appellant’s Georgia conviction.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Adams v. State, 521 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)…te failed to introduce the records into evidence. While hearsay is admissible in revocation proceed [*338] ings, probation may not be revoked solely on the basis of such evidence. McCrary v. State, 464 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Reeves v. State, 366 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). Despite the presence of the probation records in the courtroom and despite the probation officer relying upon them as the source of her testimony, the state never introduced the records into evidence nor did it lay a proper foun…
-
Clemons v. State, 388 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)…ppellant’s employer had said in a telephone conversation. It is well established that although hearsay evidence is admissible during a probation revocation hearing, a court may not base the revocation of probation solely on hearsay. Reeves v. State, 366 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Wheeler v. State, 344 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). We believe it follows from this that a finding of a violation of a separate condition of probation cannot be based entirely upon hearsay. Hence the alleged violation of conditi…
-
Purvis v. State, 420 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…the issue on double jeopardy grounds, all the other district courts have directly or impliedly held that another probation revocation proceeding may be held when a revocation order based only on hearsay testimony has been reversed. Reeves v. State, 366 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Robbins v. State, 318 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); White v. State, 301 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Hampton v. State, 276 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973).…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Combs v. State, 351 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Tuff v. State, 338 So. 2d 1335 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- White v. State, 301 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Hampton v. State, 276 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Robbins v. State, 318 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)