BRIAN A. HALLMAN
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.
Brian A. Hallman appeals four consolidated probation revocation orders based on alleged violations for dealing in stolen property. Both the appellant and the State concede that the revocation was improperly based solely on hearsay evidence. The court reverses and remands the orders, reinstating probation.
A probation revocation for commission of a new offense cannot be based solely on hearsay evidence. When the state seeks to revoke probation based on violation by commission of a new offense, it must present direct, non-hearsay evidence linking the defendant to the commission of the offense.
[1] Hearsay evidence is admissible in probation revocation hearings, but revocation cannot be based solely on hearsay.
[2] When seeking to revoke probation based on the commission of new offenses, the State must present direct, nonhearsay evidence linking the defendant to the commission of th…
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“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 controlling legal standard that probation revocations for new offenses require direct, non-hearsay evidence
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHallman was on probation and was charged with violating his probation by committing the new offense of dealing in stolen property. The trial court fou…
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.
Appellant, Brian A. Hallman, appeals four revocation orders in which the trial court found that he violated probation by committing the new law offense of dealing in stolen property.∗ Appellant argues, and the State concedes, that the revocation was improperly based solely on hearsay evidence. Because we agree with Appellant and accept the State’s concession, we reverse
∗ We have consolidated Appellant’s four appeals for purposes of this opinion.
Appellant’s revocation and remand with instructions that his probation be reinstated. See 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.”); see also Johnson v. State, 962 So. 2d 394, 397-98 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (reversing a revocation order where the only evidence linking the appellant to the stolen items was hearsay); J.F. v. State, 889 So. 2d 130, 131 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (reversing the revocation order where the only proof of possession of the stolen property by the appellant was based upon hearsay).
REVERSED and REMANDED with directions. LEWIS, MAKAR, and BILBREY, JJ., concur. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Johnson v. State, 962 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- Melton v. State, 65 So. 3d 96 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)