JAMES CARLTON WEBB, 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.
James Webb appealed his probation revocation after escaping from county jail custody while serving a probation condition. The court affirmed the finding of probation violation but reversed the three-year prison sentence imposed as a condition of continued probation, holding that such conditions cannot exceed one year.
The court affirmed that sufficient evidence supported the probation violation finding, but reversed the imposition of the three-year prison sentence as a probation condition. The maximum period of incarceration permissible as a probation condition is up to but not including one year.
[1] A defendant's admission against interest is not hearsay and can be sufficient evidence to sustain a finding of probation violation.
[2] A term of imprisonment imposed as a condition of probation must be rehabilitative and not punitive.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“an admission against interest by a defendant is not hearsay”
Establishes that Webb's admission of escape, though not independently corroborated by other witnesses, was sufficient evidence to sustain the probation violation finding.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWebb was placed on five-year probation for burglary of a dwelling, with a condition that he serve fifty-one weeks in county jail. He escaped from cust…
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 Escape From Custody cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, Judge.
Appellant was placed on probation for five years after conviction of a charge of burglary of a dwelling. One of the conditions of probation was that he serve fifty one weeks in the county jail. Appellant was charged with escaping from custody, and after a revocation hearing, the trial court found that he had violated the probation order by escaping, and restored him to the original term of probation on condition that he serve three years in prison.
Appellant contends that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the finding of probation violation and that a three-year prison term is not a valid condition of probation. His first point is not well taken, but the second point has merit.
The argument that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the finding of probation violation is based solely on the fact that the only evidence presented to the trial court at the revocation hearing was that of the probation supervisor who testified to appellant’s custody, and then to his admission of escape. Appellant says that his admission is hearsay, thus insufficient by itself to sustain the finding. This court has previously decided that issue contrary to appellant’s position. In Johnson v. State, 378 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), we held that an admission against interest by a defendant is not hearsay. There was sufficient evidence, coupled with defendant’s admissions to give appellant his day in court on the question of violation of the condition of probation. McNeely v. State, 186 So. 2d 520 (Fla.2d DCA 1966).
The imposition of a long prison term as a condition of probation has evoked considerable criticism and much comment,1 and the question now seems to be settled by the recent Supreme Court opinion in Villery v. The Florida Parole and Probation Commission, No. 57,935 (Fla. October 30, 1980). A term of imprisonment as a condition of probation while permissible, • should be rehabilitative and not punitive, and it should not have the effect of negating the parole policy of the State. The maximum period of incarceration which may be imposed as a condition of probation is up to, but not including, one year. Villery, supra.
The judgment of conviction for violation of probation is affirmed. The modification of probation which imposes the three-year prison term as a condition of continued probation is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for re-sentencing. In so doing, the court may modify or continue the probation or may revoke the probation and impose any sentence which it might originally have imposed before placing the appellant on probation.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part and REMANDED.
DAUKSCH, C. J., and SHARP, J., concur. . Shead v. State, 367 So. 2d 264 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); Olcott v. State, 378 So. 2d 303 (Fla.2d DCA 1979); Freeman v. State, 329 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jillette Jones v. State, 423 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…the defendant’s own admission made to his supervisor. Johnson v. State, 378 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). In that case we said the defendant’s admission was not hearsay, citing Robinson v. Pepper, 94 Fla. 1184, 116 So. 4 (1928). In Webb v. State, 392 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), this court also sustained the revocation of a defendant’s probation where the testimony offered in proof was the defendant’s own admission. This court did not expressly consider the effect of the Evidence Code’s definition of ad…
-
Lauxman v. State, 402 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…ondition of probation is up to, but not including one year. The condition of incarceration imposed here exceeds that time, so the probation order is vacated, and the case is remanded to the trial court for reconsideration of sentence. Webb v. State, 392 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). The judgment of conviction is affirmed. Conviction AFFIRMED. Sentence VACATED and REMANDED. DAUKSCH, C. J., concurs and concurs specially with opinion. COWART, J., dissents with opinion.…
Authorities Cited
- Shead v. State, 367 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- McNEELY v. State, 186 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Chauncey Patrick Olcott v. State, 378 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Johnson v. State, 378 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Freeman v. State, 329 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)