PATRICK CHAVOUS, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Patrick Chavous appealed the revocation of his probation based on a cocaine trafficking violation. The court reversed the revocation because the state's case rested solely on hearsay evidence—a urinalysis report introduced through the probation officer's testimony without proper foundation—which cannot be the exclusive basis for probation revocation.
No. The court held that while hearsay is admissible in probation revocation proceedings, it cannot be the sole basis for revocation. Because the urinalysis report was the only evidence presented, the trial court erred in revoking Chavous's probation.
[1] Hearsay testimony is admissible in probation revocation proceedings but cannot be the sole basis for revocation.
[2] A laboratory report is not admissible under the business records exception if the probation office does not maintain records of the laboratory's testing procedures in its…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“It is well settled that hearsay is admissible in probation revocation proceedings, but cannot be the sole basis for revocation.”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that hearsay evidence alone is insufficient for 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 intelligenceChavous was on probation and subjected to a urinalysis test. A urinalysis report from National Health Laboratories was introduced at the revocation he…
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 Business Records Exception cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Acting Chief Judge.
Patrick Chavous appeals the final judgment and sentence revoking his probation and adjudicating him guilty of trafficking in cocaine. The sole issue raised on appeal is whether the probation officer’s hearsay testimony supporting the admission of a laboratory report relating to an analysis of probationer’s urine sample was alone sufficient to establish violation of a condition of probation. We reverse.
At the revocation hearing, the trial court allowed the state to introduce over Cha-vous’ objection a urinalysis report from the National Health Laboratories. The state’s sole witness, appellant’s probation officer, testified that representatives from the laboratory pick up the specimens, analyze them and return the reports to the probation office. She was not familiar with the laboratory’s testing procedures. Because the probation office does not maintain such a record in its regular course of business, it is not admissible under the business records exception. Davis v. State, 562 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).
It is well settled that hearsay is admissible in probation revocation proceedings, but cannot be the sole basis for revocation. Hogan v. State, 583 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Meyer v. State, 445 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Terry v. State, 406 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Tuff v. State, 338 So. 2d 1335 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). In the case sub judice, there was no evidence of appellant’s probation violation other than the urinalysis report. Thus, there being nothing further before the trial court on which to base an order revoking Cha-vous’ probation, the court erred in doing so and, thus, we must reverse and set aside the order revoking probation. We note, in passing, that we are pleased that the state in its brief acknowledged the merit of the appeal.
However, reversal of an order revoking probation on the ground it was based solely on hearsay does not ordinarily bar a second revocation hearing based on the filing of another affidavit alleging the same violation. McCarrick v. State, 553 So. 2d 1373 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Tuff. Because the underlying probationary period will not expire until November 1992, the state may again attempt to prove a violation.
Reversed.
THREADGILL and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Humbert v. State, 933 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…on the same circumstances as long as the period of supervision has not expired. See Sharpston v. State, 895 So. 2d 1225, 1226 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (reversing revocation in which the violation was based solely on defendant’s arrest); Chavous v. State, 597 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (reversing revocation in which the violation was demonstrated solely by hearsay). Accordingly, we reverse the revocation order and remand for further proceedings. Reversed and remanded as directed. NORTHCUTT and LaROSE, JJ., Co…
-
Queior v. State, 157 So. 3d 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…he information provided by the anonymous telephone caller was hearsay; this evidence was clearly insufficient to prove the alleged violations. The results of the laboratory tests performed by Alere Toxicology were also hearsay. See Chavous v. State, 597 So. 2d 943, 944 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); McDoughall v. State, 133 So. 3d 1097, 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); Isaac v. State, 971 So. 2d 908, 909 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); Hogan v. State, 583 So. 2d 426, 427 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). It follows that the laboratory report was insuf…
-
Williams v. State, 666 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…the answer, according to the transcript, was “Name, Cole Stedman.” Clearly, the state failed to lay the proper foundation for the introduction of the probation documents under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. See Chavous v. State, 597 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Adams v. State, 521 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); § 90.803(6), Fla.Stat. (1993). Additionally, even though the judge stated that he would only consider the three violations before him, the transcript reveals that he did consi…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tuff v. State, 338 So. 2d 1335 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)
- Davis v. State, 562 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Hogan v. State, 583 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- McCARRICK v. State, 553 So. 2d 1373 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Roth v. State, 406 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Terry v. State, 406 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 445 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Meyer v. State, 445 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)