DALTON RAY MILLER
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Dalton Ray Miller appealed the revocation of his probation after the trial court found he violated probation by committing two new criminal offenses. The Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed the revocation, holding that the State met its burden of proof through a combination of hearsay and non-hearsay evidence, which is permissible so long as non-hearsay evidence directly links the defendant to the offense.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion. The State met its burden of proof because while hearsay is admissible at probation revocation hearings, probation may not be revoked solely on hearsay; the State must present direct, non-hearsay evidence linking the defendant to the commission of a new offense, and here such evidence was presented.
[1] A trial court may revoke probation based on evidence consisting of both hearsay and non-hearsay evidence.
[2] A revocation of probation based on the commission of a new offense may not be based solely upon hearsay evidence.
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“While hearsay is admissible at a probation revocation hearing, a revocation of probation may not be based solely upon hearsay evidence, and where the state seeks to revoke probation based on a violation . . . by the commission of a new offense, it is required to present direct, non-hearsay evidence linking the defendant to the commission of the offense.”
Establishes the key legal standard that while hearsay is admissible at probation revocation hearings, the State must provide non-hearsay evidence when seeking revocation based on new criminal offenses.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMiller admitted to violating probation on four counts but denied violations based on two new criminal charges. After a hearing, the trial court found …
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 Admissibility cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Dalton Ray Miller appeals his judgment and sentence imposed after the trial court revoked his probation. Miller admitted to four counts of violating his probation. But he denied that he violated probation based on two new criminal charges. The trial court accepted Miller’s plea to the four admitted counts. And after a hearing, the trial court found that Miller violated probation as to both of the new law offenses.
Miller argues that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his probation, asserting that the State did not meet its burden to prove that Miller violated probation by committing the two new law offenses. We disagree and find no error by the trial court. The State met its burden to prove that Miller violated his
probation by committing the two new law offenses through evidence consisting of both hearsay and non-hearsay evidence. See Russell v. State, 982 So. 2d 642, 648 (Fla. 2008) (upholding revocation of probation because along with the victim’s hearsay statement, the trial court also considered non-hearsay evidence, including direct testimony of an observation of the victim’s injury); Melton v. State, 65 So. 3d 96, 97 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (“While hearsay is admissible at a probation revocation hearing, a revocation of probation may not be based solely upon hearsay evidence, and where the state seeks to revoke probation based on a violation . . . by the commission of a new offense, it is required to present direct, non-hearsay evidence linking the defendant to the commission of the offense.”).
AFFIRMED.
ROWE, M.K. THOMAS, and NORDBY, JJ., concur. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Russell v. State, 982 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 2008)
- Melton v. State, 65 So. 3d 96 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)