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 Hallman appeals four probation revocation orders based on a conviction for dealing in stolen property. The trial court revoked his probation based solely on hearsay evidence, which violated Florida law requiring direct, non-hearsay evidence to revoke probation for a new offense.
A revocation of probation based on commission of a new offense cannot be sustained on hearsay evidence alone. Direct, non-hearsay evidence must be presented to link the defendant to the commission of the offense.
[1] A probation revocation may not be based solely upon hearsay evidence.
[2] Where a probation revocation is sought based on the commission of a new offense, direct, non-hearsay evidence linking the defendant to the commission of that offense is r…
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 controlling legal standard that direct, non-hearsay evidence is required when revoking probation based on a new offense, even though hearsay is generally admissible at such hearings.
Hallman was on probation when he was charged with dealing in stolen property. The trial court found he violated probation by committing this new law o…
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
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)