ALPHANSO BAULDY SHARPE, 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.
Alphanso Sharpe appeals the revocation of his probation based on alleged drug and firearm offenses. The court reverses because the state failed to present sufficient evidence—specifically, no laboratory analysis, field testing, or expert testimony identifying seized substances as cocaine, and no evidence of firearm possession.
The court held that the state's evidence was woefully insufficient to establish the alleged probation violation because no expert testimony or laboratory analysis confirmed the substances were cocaine, no field testing was conducted, and no evidence proved firearm possession. The probation revocation order must be reversed.
[1] A probation revocation order must be reversed when the state fails to present sufficient evidence to establish the alleged probation violation.
[2] Proof that a substance is cocaine requires laboratory analysis, field testing, or expert testimony identifying the substance based on training or experience.
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“the state's evidence was woefully insufficient to establish the alleged probation violation and the order revoking probation must necessarily be reversed”
States the court's core holding that insufficient evidence requires reversal of probation revocation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSharpe was on probation and charged with violating its conditions by committing drug and firearm offenses. On October 23, 1990, he allegedly sold a su…
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 Burden Of Proof In Probation Revocation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant Alphanso Bauldy Sharpe appeals a final order revoking his probation after an evidentiary hearing. We reverse.
The defendant was charged by affidavit with violating condition five of his probation:
“By failing to live and remain at liberty without violating any law, in that, on or about 10-30-90, in Dade County, Florida, the probationer did commit the offense of I. Sale, Purchase or Delivery of Cocaine; II. Possession of Cocaine with intent to Sell; III. Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon and IV[.] Possession of a Firearm during the Commission of a felony, as alleged in Circuit Court Case # 90-43295.”
R. 25.
The evidence adduced at the hearing below establishes that (1) on October 23,1990, the defendant sold a certain substance to an undercover police officer for ten dollars; and (2) on October 30, 1990, the police executed a search warrant and seized a certain substance from a house where the defendant was located. The substances seized on these two dates, however, were never analyzed by a laboratory technician to determine their chemical composition; nor were the substances field tested by a qualified police officer; nor did any witness identify the substances as cocaine based on training or experience. As a consequence, no witness gave any expert opinion that the substances were cocaine. Moreover, no evidence was adduced that the defendant possessed a firearm on either of the above dates. This being so, the state’s evidence was woefully insufficient to establish the alleged probation violation and the order revoking probation must necessarily be reversed. Weaver v. State, 543 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (insufficient evidence to revoke probation based on a charge of trafficking in heroin where no expert testimony or laboratory reports were introduced in evidence at the probation revocation hearing establishing that the substance sold by the defendant was, in fact, heroin); see L.R. v. State, 557 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Arnold v. State, 497 So. 2d 1356 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).
The final order under review and the sentence imposed thereunder are reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to restore the defendant to his probationary status.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sinclair v. State, 995 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…n, and the witness identifying the substance must possess an experiential background sufficient for the court to conclude that his or her identification is reliable. Compare A.A., 461 So. 2d at 165 and Brooks, 762 So. 2d at 892 with Sharpe v. State, 589 So. 2d 963, 963-64 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (reversing probation violation where neither a laboratory analysis nor “any witness identified] the substances as cocaine based on training or experience”) and Weaver v. State, 543 So. 2d 443, 443 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (rever…
Authorities Cited
- Weaver v. State, 543 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Cary Arnold v. State, 497 So. 2d 1356 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Perez v. State, 557 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- L.R. v. State, 557 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)