JOHN SMITH, 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 affirmed probation revocation based on failure to make monthly reports but reversed the revocation based on hearsay evidence of incomplete drug rehabilitation, remanding for resentencing determination.
Probation revocation based solely on hearsay evidence of incomplete drug rehabilitation is insufficient, but revocation may be affirmed on the independent ground of failure to make monthly reports.
[1] Hearsay evidence alone is insufficient to support revocation of probation for failure to complete a court-ordered drug rehabilitation program.
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“The State acknowledges that the only evidence to support the allegation that the defendant violated his probation by not successfully completing a drug rehabilitation program, as a condition of his probation, consists solely of hearsay evidence.”
The court's opening statement establishing the evidentiary deficiency in one of the revocation grounds.
Smith was on probation with conditions including completing a drug rehabilitation program and making monthly reports. The State sought to revoke his p…
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 Evidentiary Sufficiency cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The State acknowledges that the only evidence to support the allegation that the defendant violated his probation by not successfully completing a drug rehabilitation program, as a condition of his probation, consists solely of hearsay evidence. The State correctly concedes, therefore, that this allegation is insufficient to support a revocation of the defendant’s probation.
Since the record is equally clear, however, that there was an additional violation alleged that would support the revocation of the defendant’s probation, the order revoking the defendant’s probation is affirmed as to the charge that he failed to make monthly reports. The portion of the Order of Revocation that relates to the defendant’s failure to successfully complete a drug rehabilitation program is reversed. Since the record is not clear as to whether the trial court would have revoked the defendant’s probation and sentenced the defendant to five years in prison based solely on the one valid ground supporting revocation, the order revoking probation and the five year sentence imposed thereafter are reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to determine whether the defendant’s probation should be revoked and, if so, what sentence should be imposed.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Blair v. State, 805 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…emand this matter so that the trial ’ court may reconsider whether Blair’s probation should be revoked because of his use of alcohol and, if so, the sentence to be imposed. See Astore v. State, 618 So. 2d 790, 792 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Smith v. State, 664 So. 2d 72, 72-73 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). In summary, we reverse the finding that Blair violated his probation due to the commission of a battery; we affirm the finding that he violated his probation due to the use of alcohol; we reverse the order of revocation o…
-
Smith v. State, 705 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…See, e.g., Haygood v. State, 687 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Wilson v. State, 506 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). However, it is not clear whether the court would have imposed the same sentence based solely on that violation. See Smith v. State, 664 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Astore v. State, 618 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Jones v. State, 611 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). We, therefore, vacate Smith’s sentence. On remand, the trial court may impose the same sentence or exercise its discretion to…
-
Shadrick Bell v. State, 773 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…und. However, we reverse the revocation because contrary to the state’s contention, the record does not clearly show that the trial court would have revoked probation and imposed the same sentence based on the valid ground alone. See Smith v. State, 664 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), Accordingly, the revocation and sentence are reversed and the cause remanded for the trial court to determine whether defendant’s probation should be revoked and, if so, what sentence should be imposed. Affirmed in part, revers…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence