MICHAEL B. WILLIAMS, 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.
Michael Williams appeals the revocation of his community control, challenging the trial court's reliance on hearsay testimony from a probation officer who lacked personal knowledge of alleged violations and the court's consideration of uncharged offenses. The Florida Second District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that revocation cannot be based solely on improperly admitted hearsay or violations not charged in the warrant.
The court reversed the revocation, holding that it is improper to revoke probation based solely on hearsay or for offenses not charged in the warrant. The state failed to lay proper foundation for the probation documents under the business records exception to the hearsay rule.
[1] A probation revocation hearing cannot be based solely on hearsay testimony.
[2] Probation revocation cannot be supported by evidence of violations not alleged in the affidavit.
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“Clearly, the state failed to lay the proper foundation for the introduction of the probation documents under the business records exception to the hearsay rule.”
Establishes the primary legal error that the foundation for hearsay was not properly established
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams was on community control and allegedly violated it by leaving his residence without permission on three occasions. At the revocation hearing,…
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 Foundation For Business Records cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Judge.
Appellant, Michael B. Williams, requests reversal of the revocation of his community control, arguing that the only evidence of his alleged violation was hearsay testimony offered by the probation officer. He also argues that the trial judge improperly relied on violations not alleged in the affidavit to support revocation. We agree and reverse.
The only witness at the revocation hearing was appellant’s current probation officer, Mr. Cruz, who was not appellant’s probation officer at the time the violations were allegedly committed. The violations report was prepared by another officer who had since left the office. Cruz testified that appellant violated his community control by leaving his residence without permission on three separate occasions. Cruz further testified that he had no personal knowledge that appellant had, in fact, left his residence on those occasions. When asked by the court if the documents were kept in the Department of Correction’s usual and ordinary course of business, the answer, according to the transcript, was “Name, Cole Stedman.” Clearly, the state failed to lay the proper foundation for the introduction of the probation documents under the business records exception to the hearsay rule. See Chavous v. State, 597 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Adams v. State, 521 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); § 90.803(6), Fla.Stat. (1993).
Additionally, even though the judge stated that he would only consider the three violations before him, the transcript reveals that he did consider additional offenses that had been testified to by the probation officer even though they were not charged in the warrant. Although defense counsel objected to this hearsay testimony, the court denied counsel’s request to reinstate appellant’s community control, stating:
“I’m not going to do it. If anybody will reinstate him it will be higher court. I have all these documents and things that he has done. I already know that he has other charges. This fellow is just not going to take care of himself, so I’m going to take care of him for himself.” Since it is improper to revoke probation based solely on hearsay or for offenses not charged in the warrant, reversal is required. See Hodges v. State, 370 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Sampson v. State, 375 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).
Reversed and remanded.
RYDER, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Thomas v. State, 760 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…arsay exception to the hearsay rule, the trial court was without proper basis to revoke Thomas’ probation for violation of condition (5) because the revocation of probation may not be based solely upon hearsay evidence. See, e.g., Williams v. State, 666 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Colina v. State, 629 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). The order finding that Thomas violated his probation and the sentence imposed are vacated. We remand with instructions to restore Thomas’ term of probation. HARRIS and PLEUS,…
-
Young v. State, 739 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…access to her home. Each of these statements was hearsay.1 [*637] Because Ms. Stanley did not testify to the events occurring on that date in her bedroom, these hearsay statements cannot serve as the sole basis for revocation. See Williams v. State, 666 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). The only other testimony relating to the events consisted of Mr. Young’s statements to his probation officer and his testimony at the revocation hearing. The probation officer testified that Mr. Young reported in specially to te…
-
Norvell Johnson v. State, 691 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…ords may, if a proper predicate is established, be admitted into evidence under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, the state did not attempt to introduce those records in this case. § 90.803(6), Fla. Stat. (1995); Williams v. State, 666 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Adams, 521 So. 2d at 338. Since the appellant’s probation could not properly be revoked solely on the hearsay evidence introduced in this case, we must reverse and remand with instructions to set aside the order revoking the ap…
Authorities Cited
- Sterling Sampson v. State, 375 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Adams v. State, 521 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- Hodges v. State, 370 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Chavous v. State, 597 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)