ROBERT SNELL, 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.
The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part a trial court's order revoking probation. The court found sufficient evidence for one violation but not for others, and remanded for correction of scrivener's errors in the revocation orders.
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the violation of failing to report as required by condition (1). However, the court found insufficient evidence for violations of conditions (3) (changing residence) and (12) (failing to pay restitution). The court also found scrivener's errors in the revocation orders.
[1] Hearsay evidence is admissible in probation revocation proceedings, but hearsay alone is insufficient to establish a violation of probation.
[2] A probation revocation order referencing violations not proven or orally pronounced by the trial court will be remanded for correction.
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“We affirm the trial court’s revocation order to the extent it held that the appellant violated condition (1) in that he failed to report for the months of October and November, 1993. But we reverse as to any violation of condition (3) that he changed his residence without consent and condition (12) that he failed to pay restitution because no evidence supported those violations.”
This quote summarizes the court's decision on the sufficiency of evidence for the probation violations.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert Snell's probation was revoked by the trial court for violating conditions related to reporting, changing residence without consent, and failing…
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 To Hearsay Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Acting Chief Judge.
Robert Snell seeks review of the trial court’s orders of revocation of probation. We affirm the trial court’s revocation order to the extent it held that the appellant violated condition (1) in that he failed to report for the months of October and November, 1993. But we reverse as to any violation of condition (3) that he changed his residence without consent and condition (12) that he failed to pay restitution because no evidence supported those violations.
Appellant contends that the violation of condition (1) was supported by hearsay evidence alone, and is, therefore, legally insufficient to support the revocation. Hearsay evidence is admissible in probation revocation proceedings, but hearsay alone is insufficient to establish a violation of probation. Clemons v. State, 388 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). The evidence adduced here included hearsay evidence of a probation officer’s statements, but also included appellant’s testimony which supported a violation of condition (1). Moreover, appellant’s probation file was admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule as a business record. See § 90.803(6), Fla.Stat. (1993). Thus, we do not find merit to his argument.
We reverse and remand, however, for correction of scrivener’s errors. Each order incorrectly states that the appellant pled guilty to a violation of his probation. Also, the orders of revocation refer to the “violations as listed in the affidavit,” but, as the state concedes, no evidence was presented regarding violations of conditions (3) and (12). A revocation order which references violations of conditions of probation which were not proved, and were not orally pronounced by the trial court, will be remanded for conformance to the oral pronouncement. Burgin v. State, 623 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). We, therefore, remand the case with directions to the trial court to correct the revocation orders.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for correction.
SCHOONOVER and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Salvatierra v. State, 691 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…PER CURIAM. A written order of probation revocation must conform to the court’s oral pronouncement at a defendant’s probation revocation hearing. Narvaez v. State, 674 So. 2d 868(Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Snell v. State, 658 So. 2d 1165(Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Defendant here complains that the inclusion of the offense of possession of cocaine in his written order of probation violation was not supported by the evidence produced at his probation revocation hearing. Upon the state’s confe…
-
Rowan v. State, 696 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…nd McPherson v. State, 530 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), the defendants admitted they were living elsewhere, and furthermore, the probation officers visited the residences a few times and found the probationers absent. Finally, in Snell v. State, 658 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), this court affirmed a revocation of probation for changing residence without procuring consent where, in addition to hearsay evidence, the probationer’s testimony supported a violation of that condition of probation. In the inst…
-
Laffitte v. State, 16 So. 3d 315 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…f probation revocation must conform to the court’s oral pronouncement at a defendant’s probation revocation hearing.” Salvatierra v. State, 691 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (citing Narvaez v. State, 674 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Snell v. State, 658 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)). Here, the Order specified that the defendant violated condition “L.7.” of the order of probation which required payment of supervision costs, and condition “L.8.e.,” which required payment of costs for drug testing. These findin…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Burgin v. State, 623 So. 2d 575 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Clemons v. State, 388 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)