SYLVESTER LEON THOMPSON, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed probation revocation because the trial court relied solely on hearsay evidence at the revocation hearing, but affirmed the prior modification of probation conditions requiring drug rehabilitation.
Probation cannot be revoked based solely on hearsay evidence.
[1] Probation revocation cannot be based solely on hearsay evidence; at least some competent evidence must support the violation finding.
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 intelligence“Probation cannot be revoked solely on the basis of hearsay.”
Court stating the governing legal standard for probation revocation proceedings.
Thompson's probation was revoked following a hearing on a second Affidavit of Violation filed December 22, 1992, where only hearsay evidence was prese…
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.
As the State correctly concedes, the trial court erred in revoking the defendant’s probation as to the second Affidavit of Violation of probation filed on December 22, 1992, because the only evidence presented at the revocation hearing, held in connection with that affidavit, was hearsay. Probation cannot be revoked solely on the basis of hearsay. Brown v. State, 537 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Adams v. State, 521 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Wright v. State, 348 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). Thus, the order revoking probation and the sentence imposed in connection therewith are reversed.
The appellant also contests the validity of the modification of his probation that took place on November 25, 1992. That modification involved requiring the appellant to attend a drug rehabilitation program. In view of the fact that appellant was represented by counsel at the hearing during which his probation was modified, and it further appearing that the modification of appellant’s probation was a result of an agreement entered into between appellant, his probation officer, the State, and the Court, we find nothing in the record to support appellant’s contention that the modification should also be vacated. As a result thereof, we approve the modification.
Accordingly, the appellant must be restored to the position that he held prior to having his probation revoked at the hearing on May 14, 1993.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Beecham v. State, 652 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…selor’s reports. The reports were not admitted into evidence and the program counselor did not testify. A court may not revoke community control based solely on hearsay evidence. Corona v. State, 642 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Thompson v. State, 626 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 3d DCA' 1993); Frazier v. State, 587 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). The record fails to disclose any non-hearsay evidence presented to support revocation. In addition, the officer’s testimony as to her observations of defendant at the program…
Authorities Cited
- Adams v. State, 521 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- Brown v. State, 537 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Wright v. State, 348 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)