WILFORD JOHNSON, 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.
A court cannot revoke probation based solely on hearsay testimony regarding community service, but failure to pay supervision costs is a valid ground for revocation.
Appellant's probation was revoked based on alleged failure to perform community service and failure to pay supervision costs. The community service vi…
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 Hearsay Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks review of an order adjudicating him guilty, revoking his probation, and sentencing him to a term of incarceration. The trial court found that appellant had failed to perform community service but that conclusion was based solely on the hearsay testimony of a probation officer who relied on monthly reports prepared by a community service specialist. A court may not revoke probation based solely on hearsay and the trial court’s conclusion in this regard must be reversed. Beecham v. State, 652 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).
The trial court also, however, found that probation had been violated by appellant’s failure to pay monthly costs of supervision and certain court costs which were imposed. Appellant argues that there was insufficient evidence of his ability to pay but we disagree. Further, appellant’s argument that the trial court could not delegate the making of a payment schedule to the probation officer was not presented below and it is not properly preserved for this appeal. See Schotsch v. State, 670 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 679 So. 2d 774 (Fla.1996).
Concluding that one of the grounds for violation of probation was proven and the other was not, we remand to the trial court for a determination whether the probation would have been revoked based solely on the proven violation. Gavins v. State, 587 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.
WEBSTER, LAWRENCE and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Major Barnes v. State, 739 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…tate had presented only hearsay evidence of the violation. Although hearsay is admissible in probation revocation hearings, a trial court cannot find a defendant has violated probation solely on the basis of hearsay evidence. See Johnson v. State, 695 So. 2d 749, 750 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Andrews v. State, 693 So. 2d 1138, 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Hogan v. State, 583 So. 2d 426, 427 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Here, although the court claimed it was relying on the business records exception to the hearsay rule, th…
-
Faulk v. State, 743 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…treatment course which had been required. Hearsay is admissible in violation of probation hearings, but may not form the only evidentiary support for the alleged violation. See Andrews v. State, 693 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Johnson v. State, 695 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). In the instant case, the record demonstrates clearly that the termination of treatment report is the only basis upon which the trial court determined that the appellant willfully violated his probation. There is no other evidenc…
Authorities Cited
- Lambert Keith Gavins v. State, 587 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Schotsch v. State, 670 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Beecham v. State, 652 So. 2d 1275 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)