KEVIN TONY ROBINSON, 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.
Kevin Tony Robinson appealed the revocation of his community control following a cocaine possession conviction. The court affirmed the revocation but reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to enter a written order reciting the specific violations found.
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support revocation on a preponderance standard, and that hearsay is permissible at revocation hearings as long as it is not the sole basis for the finding. However, the court held that a written order reciting specific violations is mandatory, even when oral findings are made.
[1] Proof sufficient to support a criminal conviction is not required to support a judge's discretionary order revoking community control; the state need only show by a prepo…
[2] Hearsay is not inadmissible at a community control revocation hearing, but it cannot be the sole basis for a finding of violation.
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“Proof sufficient to support a criminal conviction is not required to support a judge's discretionary order revoking community control. The state need only show by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed the offense charged.”
Establishes the lower evidentiary standard applicable to revocation proceedings compared to criminal convictions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobinson pleaded guilty to cocaine possession in March 1991 and was placed on 12 months' community control with a condition to live without violating …
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 Revocation Of Community Control cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Kevin Tony Robinson has appealed from an order of the trial court revoking his community control. We affirm the revocation, but reverse the order and remand for entry of a written revocation order reciting the specific violations found by the trial court.
In March 1991, following his guilty plea to possession of cocaine, the trial court placed Robinson on 12 months’ community control, condition (5) of which was that he “live and remain at liberty without violating any law.” In February 1992, an affidavit of violation of community control was filed based on the execution of a search warrant at Robinson’s residence which revealed marijuana cigarettes in plain view, and a vial of prescription medication not in Robinson’s name.
At the subsequent hearing, a police officer testified to the fruits of the search, and stated, without objection, that the “pills” in the vial had tested as cocaine. He also related Robinson’s post-Miranda statement that he often sold the “pills” when he needed extra money. A second officer corroborated this testimony and, through him, the state introduced a lab report indicating that the “pills” were cocaine. Based on this evidence, the trial court orally found Robinson in violation of his community control, revoked community control, and sentenced Robinson to 3¥2 years. The written revocation order did not recite the specific violations found by the court.
Robinson argues that arrest alone is insufficient to support a revocation of community control, Rock v. State, 584 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), and that the state failed to prove a violation by competent evidence. Specifically, Robinson alleges that the only evidence of the nature of the “pills” discovered in the search was the hearsay lab report, and points out that revocation cannot be based solely on hearsay, Whisler v. State, 569 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).
Proof sufficient to support a criminal conviction is not required to support a judge’s discretionary order revoking community control. The state need only show by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed the offense charged. Griffin v. State, 603 So. 2d 48, 50 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Further, hearsay is not inadmissible at a revocation hearing, it simply cannot be the sole basis for a finding of violation of community control. Whisler at 935.
Here, the trial court based its revocation on findings that Robinson possessed marijuana and prescription drugs not his own, which drugs he admitted selling. Robinson does not challenge the finding that he possessed marijuana. Further, the lab report was not the sole evidence of the nature of the prescription drug, in that the arresting officer testified without objection that it was cocaine. The trial court’s discretionary order revoking community control is therefore amply supported by the evidence.
However, despite acceptable oral findings of the basis for revocation, a trial court must enter a written order reciting the specific violations found. Clark v. State, 510 So. 2d 1202, 1204 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). Accord Knight v. State, 566 So. 2d 339, 340 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Wilson v. State, 581 So. 2d 255, 256 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). The revocation order entered by the trial court herein does not recite the violations as required. Therefore, while we affirm the revocation of community control, we reverse the order on appeal and remand for entry of a written revocation order reciting the specific violations found.
JOANOS, C.J., and SHIVERS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (20 total)
-
Robinson v. State, 907 So. 2d 1284 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…711 So. 2d 1378, 1378 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Amador v. State, 713 So. 2d 1121, 1122 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). “Proof sufficient to support a criminal conviction is not required to support a judge’s discretionary order revoking” probation. Robinson v. State, 609 So. 2d 89, 90 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Here, the trial court used an incorrect standard in finding the new law violations and never reached the ultimate issue of whether the State had proven the violation by the greater weight of the evidence. Accordingly, the tr…
-
Jones v. State, 638 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…eview of the record indicates that the trial court failed to file a written order revoking Appellant’s probation. The trial court must enter a written order specifying the terms and conditions of probation that have been violated. Robinson v. State, 609 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Frazier v. State, 571 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). Accordingly, this case is remanded for the entry of a written order of revocation that specifies the particular probation conditions that were violated. The Appellant does n…
-
Larangera v. State, 686 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…re for a short period of time before returning to Florida. As the order of revocation fails to specify the specific violations found, it must be reversed for that reason alone. Nelson v. State, 670 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Robinson v. State, 609 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). On remand the trial court should therefore make specific findings in writing regarding the change of address charges and determine whether these violations alone warrant revocation, and if so, imposition of the same sentence. Ga…
Previewing 3 of 20 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Clark v. State, 510 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)
- Knight v. State, 566 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Rock v. State, 584 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Griffin v. State, 603 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Whisler v. State, 569 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- State v. Dortha Locklear, 581 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)