RAMON CORONA, 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.
Ramon Corona appeals the revocation of his community control for failing to enter a drug treatment program. The court affirmed the revocation based on sufficient evidence of willful violation, but remanded for the trial court to correct its written order to match its oral pronouncement by removing an erroneous reference to an aggravated assault charge.
The court held that the revocation was properly supported by an acceptable combination of hearsay and non-hearsay evidence demonstrating a willful and substantial violation. However, the written revocation order erroneously included a reference to an aggravated assault charge that was not mentioned in the trial court's oral pronouncement, requiring remand for correction.
[1] Hearsay evidence may be considered in a community control revocation hearing, provided it is not the sole evidence upon which the revocation is based.
[2] A trial court may revoke community control based on a combination of hearsay and non-hearsay evidence.
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“hearsay evidence may be considered in probation revocation hearing as long as not only evidence upon which revocation is based”
Establishes the legal standard for admissibility of hearsay in revocation proceedings, allowing mixed hearsay and non-hearsay evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCorona was sentenced to community control with a condition requiring enrollment in a drug treatment program. After his release, Corona failed to repor…
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 Willful And Substantial Violation Of Community Control cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant, Ramon Corona, appeals from an order revoking his community control. We affirm the revocation of his community control, but remand for the trial court to amend the revocation order to conform to its oral pronouncements.
The defendant contends that the trial court erred in revoking his community control for failure to enter a drug treatment program where the only evidence presented at the revocation hearing was hearsay.
We disagree. The record reveals that the state presented an acceptable combination of hearsay and non-hearsay evidence. See Purvis v. State, 420 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (hearsay evidence may be considered in probation revocation hearing as long as not only evidence upon which revocation is based). The probation officer stated that the defendant had failed to report to the drug treatment program after he was released from court. The defendant’s wife had told the probation officer that the defendant had not gone to the program.
Additionally, the probation officer did not receive any of the paperwork from the program indicating that the appellant had entered the program. The state also presented the defendant’s testimony that he understood enrollment in the drug treatment program was a condition of community control and that he made no attempt to comply with the condition. Based on the evidence presented to it, the trial court properly found that the defendant’s violation was willful and substantial.
We find that the trial court properly revoked the defendant’s community control.
The state properly concedes that the trial court erred in reciting in its written order of revocation that the defendant violated community control by committing an aggravated assault where the trial court’s oral pronouncement was that the defendant had only violated community control by failing to enter the drug treatment program. See Archie v. State, 558 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Accordingly, this cause should be remanded to the trial court with instructions to strike the reference to the commission of an aggravated assault from the revocation order. See Manuel v. State, 564 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Archie, 558 So. 2d at 183; Roberts v. State, 512 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Narvaez v. State, 674 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…ng him for those conditions. However, the written order of revocation of probation and community control erroneously lists all eleven violations. A written order of revocation must conform to the oral pronouncement at the hearing. Corona v. State, 642 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Hawthorne v. State, 583 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Here, the written order lists several violations that were not addressed at the revocation hearing. Consequently, we reverse and remand with instructions to strike the refer…
-
Garcia v. State, 701 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…obation which relied solely on facts of which testifying witness had no personal knowledge). However, we must also consider the non-hearsay testimony of appellant which relates to the first three scheduled appointments with PMG. See Corona v. State, 642 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (considering non-hearsay admission of probationer that he made no attempt to comply with condition of probation). Appellant’s testimony reflects that he could not make the first appointment because of a lack of transportation but…
-
Salvatierra v. State, 691 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…to make ordered payments for medical treatment received, all constitute sufficient evidence to satisfy the trial court’s conclusion that the defendant violated his probation. See Johnson v. State, 667 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Corona v. State, 642 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Ordonez v. State, 408 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 419 So. 2d 1200 (Fla.1982). Consequently, the one violation as to which there was insufficient evidence is stricken. In all other respects, the order is affirmed.…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Purvis v. State, 420 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Roberts v. State, 512 So. 2d 286 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Archie v. State, 558 So. 2d 183 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Stocker v. State, 564 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Manuel v. State, 564 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)