FRANCISCO R. LIRA, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Trial court properly revoked community control on two valid grounds, but the aggravated battery finding must be struck because it rested solely on hearsay testimony.
A probation or community control revocation cannot rest on a finding of a specific crime where the only evidence connecting the defendant to that crime is hearsay.
[1] Although hearsay evidence is admissible in probation or community control revocation proceedings, a violation cannot be found where the only evidence connecting the defen…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLira's community control was revoked based on three alleged violations. Lira conceded two violations were valid but challenged the third, an aggravate…
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.
Francisco Lira appeals an order of revocation of community control. The trial court revoked defendant’s community control after finding three separate violations. Defendant concedes that two of the three grounds were valid and that the revocation was proper. He contends, however, that the finding that he committed aggravated battery was supported solely by hearsay testimony and must be stricken from the order of revocation. We agree.
At the probation revocation hearing the only testimony which connected the defendant to the battery of the victim was the hearsay testimony of the probation officer and the police officer. While hearsay evidence is admissible in probation or community control revocation proceedings, it is impermissible to find a violation where the only evidence connecting the defendant to the crime is hearsay. Davis v. State, 510 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Walker v. State, 426 So. 2d 1180, 1181 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Clayton v. State, 422 So. 2d 83, 84 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Combs v. State, 351 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); see also Scott v. State, 406 So. 2d 100, 101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
Because the order of revocation of community control is supported by two valid grounds, the order is affirmed, but the cause is remanded with directions to strike the finding that the defendant committed the crime of aggravated battery.
Order affirmed; remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hall v. State, 744 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…s probation cannot be revoked solely on the basis of hearsay evidence. See Shaw v. State, 710 So. 2d 182 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); [*521] Ford v. State, 678 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Colina v. State, 629 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Lira v. State, 579 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). In this case, the State introduced an overwhelming amount of hearsay evidence. It argues that enough non-hearsay evidence was introduced to sustain the defendant’s probation revocation. We acknowledge the line of cases which hold…1 / 2
-
Colina v. State, 629 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)…appellant’s probation officer. Although hearsay evidence is admissible in a probation revocation hearing, proving a violation of probation solely by hearsay evidence is improper. McNealy v. State, 479 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Lira v. State, 579 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Because the evidence relied upon to prove appellant committed a battery while on probation was hearsay, the trial court’s finding that appellant violated his probation is improper. We reverse the revocation of probation and the o…
-
Santana v. State, 677 So. 2d 1339 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…-offered plea is not sufficient in and of itself to establish a violation of the right to stand trial. There must be a showing that the enhanced sentence was directly attributable to judicial vindictiveness or punitive action. See Holliway v. State, 579 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Stephney v. State, 564 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Wilkinson v. State, 322 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). As previously explained by this court: Absent a demonstration by the defendant of judicial vindictiveness or punitive…
Authorities Cited
- Combs v. State, 351 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Clayton v. State, 422 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Walker v. State, 426 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Davis v. State, 510 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- 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)