MARGARET MEYER, 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.
Margaret Meyer appealed her probation revocation, challenging whether the state proved she had the financial ability to pay required supervision and prosecution costs, and objecting that the revocation order failed to specify which probation conditions she violated. The court affirmed the revocation but remanded to require the trial court to specify the violated conditions on the written order.
The court affirmed the probation revocation because Meyer testified she owned stock, providing non-hearsay evidence of financial ability beyond the hearsay evidence, and because the court properly revoked probation on the merits. However, the court remanded to require the trial court to specify on the written revocation order which probation conditions it found Meyer violated.
[1] A probation revocation order may not be based solely upon hearsay evidence.
[2] A defendant's failure to object to hearsay evidence at a probation revocation hearing may waive the objection.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“We recognize that a probation revocation order may not be based solely upon hearsay evidence.”
Establishes the legal standard that probation revocation cannot rest solely on hearsay, which Meyer invoked in her challenge.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMeyer was on probation with conditions requiring her to pay $10 per month toward supervision costs and $34.80 for prosecution costs. At the revocation…
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 Hearsay Evidence In Probation Revocation Hearings cases and more on FLexlaw
HOBSON, Acting Chief Judge.
Margaret Meyer appeals a final judgment and sentence imposed upon her after entry of an order revoking her probation. We affirm and remand.
Meyer, who was insolvent below, initially contends on appeal that the state failed to prove at her probation revocation hearing that she had the financial ability to satisfy conditions (2) and (9) of her probation which required, respectively, that she pay the state $10 per month toward the costs of supervision and $34.80 for the costs of prosecution. In particular, she asserts that the only evidence which the state produced at the hearing in this regard came in the form of hearsay evidence.
We recognize that a probation revocation order may not be based solely upon hearsay evidence. See, e.g., Terry v. State, 406 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Tuff v. State, 338 So. 2d 1335 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Brown v. State, 338 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Franklin v. State, 226 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969); Scott v. State, 406 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). However, a review of the hearing transcript shows that, although Meyer objected to the majority of hearsay evidence adduced at the hearing by the state, she did not object to her probation officer’s hearsay testimony that she had “interest checks coming from up North.” Regardless, it cannot be said that the court below relied solely upon hearsay evidence in revoking Meyer’s probation because Meyer testified herself at the hearing that she owned stock in a corporation.
Meyer’s other argument on appeal, one with which the state does not quarrel, concerns the trial court’s failure to list on the written probation revocation order the conditions of probation which it found that she violated. A study of the hearing transcript shows that the court apparently determined that she violated not only conditions (2) and (9), but also condition (8), which required that she comply with all instructions given to her by her probation officer. The court expressly declined to find that she violated condition (5), which mandated that she live and remain at liberty without violating any law.
Accordingly, we remand with directions that the trial court inscribe upon the written probation revocation order the conditions which it found that Meyer violated. We affirm the judgment and sentence because the court properly revoked her probation.
AFFIRMED and REMANDED.
RYDER and LEHAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Chavous v. State, 597 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…Davis v. State, 562 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). It is well settled that hearsay is admissible in probation revocation proceedings, but cannot be the sole basis for revocation. Hogan v. State, 583 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Meyer v. State, 445 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Terry v. State, 406 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Tuff v. State, 338 So. 2d 1335 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). In the case sub judice, there was no evidence of appellant’s probation violation other than the urinalysis report. Thus, there…
-
Esbenshade v. State, 494 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…ficient evidence to justify the revocation of probation, and the trial court’s oral pronouncements to that effect were not erroneous. However, the order erroneously fails to recite the conditions of probation which were violated. See Meyer v. State, 445 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Dunlap v. State, 405 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Accordingly, we remand for correction of the order but otherwise affirm. RYDER, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and LEHAN, JJ., concur.…
-
Loring v. State, 499 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…Center. The court revoked the defendant’s probation and the evidence supports revocation based on violation of that condition. The trial judge, however, failed to specify the condition or conditions on which he based revocation. See Meyer v. State, 445 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). There is no merit to the defendant’s remaining point on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm revocation of the defendant’s probation and remand with directions to the trial court to properly inscribe the condition or conditions on wh…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tuff v. State, 338 So. 2d 1335 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Franklin v. State, 226 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- Brown v. State, 338 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Roth v. State, 406 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Terry v. State, 406 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- The Keyes Co. v. Rocky Graziani, Inc., 406 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Scott v. State, 406 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)