ANGEL COLINA, JR., 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.
Florida appellate court reversed probation revocation because the trial court improperly relied solely on hearsay evidence to find the defendant violated probation by committing battery.
A probation violation cannot be proven solely by hearsay evidence, even though hearsay is admissible in probation revocation hearings.
[1] Hearsay evidence alone is insufficient to support a finding of probation violation, notwithstanding the general admissibility of hearsay in probation revocation proceedin…
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“Although hearsay evidence is admissible in a probation revocation hearing, proving a violation of probation solely by hearsay evidence is improper.”
Court explaining the evidentiary standard for probation revocation hearings.
Appellant Colina was on probation when his probation officer filed an affidavit alleging he committed battery. The alleged victim did not testify at t…
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 Sufficiency Of Evidence For Probation Revocation cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Acting Chief Judge.
Appellant, Angel Colina, Jr., challenges the trial court’s revocation of his probation after finding him guilty of violating probation and the subsequent order of judgment and sentence of twenty years imprisonment for attempted sexual battery.
While appellant was on probation, his probation officer filed an affidavit of violation of probation alleging that appellant had committed the offense of battery. Appellant argues there was not sufficient evidence to find him guilty of committing a battery and to revoke his probation. There were no eyewitnesses, except the victim, to the battery. The alleged victim did not testify at the probation revocation hearing. While other witnesses testified to the fact that the victim showed evidence of injury, no one could testify as to the origin of the injuries. A letter from the alleged victim admitted into evidence at the hearing was hearsay as was testimony of a police officer and 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 order of judgment and sentence entered thereafter and remand to the trial court for appropriate further proceedings.
Reversed.
HALL and PARKER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Russell v. State, 982 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 2008)…directly conflicts with a decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Santiago v. State, 889 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004), and the Second District Court of Appeal in Colwell v. State, 838 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), and Colina v. State, 629 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), on a question of law. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(3), Fla. Const. For the reasons that follow, we approve the decision of the Fifth District Court of Appeal in Russell, disapprove the decision of the Fourth District…
-
Gammon v. State, 778 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…llenged as purely hearsay. If the court had grounded its findings exclusively on inadmissible hearsay, it would have abused its discretion in revoking the defendant’s probation. See Young v. State, 739 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Colina v. State, 629 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). In this case, however, the testimony consisted of two types of hearsay. First, the probation officer stated that Mr. Gammon’s landlord told her that he had left his approved residence, which was a violation of condition 3, and, f…
-
Blair v. State, 805 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…elligerent to the deputy, and he did not say anything that could be deemed to be an admission to the battery. Although hearsay evidence is admissible in a probation revocation hearing, it cannot be the sole basis of the revocation. Colina v. State, 629 So. 2d 274, 275 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Clayton v. State, 422 So. 2d 83, 84 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). The record reveals that the only evidence link [*877] ing Blair to the commission of a battery was the hearsay testimony of the deputy concerning what the victim said h…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- McNEALY v. State, 479 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Lira v. State, 579 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)