LARRY THOMAS, 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.
Larry Thomas appealed the revocation of his probation, arguing that the trial court relied entirely on inadmissible hearsay evidence. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the revocation but remanded for entry of a written order stating the trial court's reasons, holding that probation can be revoked based on a combination of inadmissible hearsay and admissible evidence such as a defendant's statements to a probation officer.
Probation can be revoked based on a combination of hearsay evidence inadmissible at a criminal trial and evidence admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule, provided there is some evidence to support revocation that would be admissible at a criminal trial. Additionally, a trial court must provide a written order reflecting the reasons for probation revocation.
[1] A probation revocation may be based on a combination of hearsay evidence inadmissible at a criminal trial and evidence admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule.
[2] A defendant's statement to a probation officer explaining their conduct is admissible at a criminal trial as an admission by a party.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Although probation cannot be revoked based only on hearsay evidence which would be inadmissible at a criminal trial, revocation can be grounded on a combination of that type of evidence and evidence which is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule.”
Establishes the standard for probation revocation: a combination of inadmissible and admissible evidence is permissible.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThomas's community control officer testified at the revocation hearing regarding statements made by three witnesses who were not present at the hearin…
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 Probation Revocation Standards cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, Judge.
The appellant contends that the trial court erred in revoking his probation because all of the evidence on which the revocation was based was hearsay.
We affirm. Appellant’s community control officer testified as to what three witnesses, who were not present at the revocation hearing, told him. This was, of course, hearsay as is defined by section 90.801(l)(e), Florida Statutes (1995). The officer also testified, however, as to what the appellant told him by way of explanation as to why he was not where he was supposed to be under the terms of his probation. That testimony, although generally defined as hearsay, would be admissible in evidence at a criminal trial as an exception to the hearsay rule because it is an admission by a party under section 90.803(18), Florida Statutes (1995).
Although probation cannot be revoked based only on hearsay evidence which would be inadmissible at a criminal trial,1 revocation can be grounded on a combination of that type of evidence and evidence which is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. McPherson v. State, 530 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (court could revoke probation based on hearsay inadmissible at a trial combined with appellant’s statement to probation officer).
The question is not, as appellant seems to believe, whether all of the evidence is generally defined as hearsay, but rather whether there is some evidence to support revocation which would be admissible at a criminal trial. Because the officer’s testimony as to appellant’s excuse (which conflicted with appellant’s testimony at the hearing) would have been admissible at a trial, there was sufficient evidence to revoke.
We do agree with appellant that he was entitled to a written statement by the trial court reflecting the reasons for the revocation. We therefore affirm the revocation but remand for the written order. Mitchell v. State, 681 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
STONE, C.J., and GROSS, J„ concur. . Durden v. State, 577 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Vezina v. State, 644 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Purvis v. State, 420 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (21 total)
-
Gammon v. State, 778 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…be admissible at a criminal trial. Because the officer’s testimony as to appellant’s excuse (which conflicted with appellant’s testimony at the hearing) would have been admissible at trial, there was sufficient evidence to revoke. Thomas v. State, 711 So. 2d 96, 97 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (citations omitted). The situation in this case is similar to that in Thomas. Mr. Gammon allegedly told his probation officer that he had used drugs and that he had gone to North Carolina. At the revocation hearing he denied…
-
Stewart v. State, 926 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…this hearsay evidence. See Thompson, 890 So. 2d at 383. See also Dawson v. State, 921 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Meade v. State, 799 So. 2d 430, 433 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Gammon v. State, 778 So. 2d 390, 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Thomas v. State, 711 So. 2d 96, 97 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Andrews v. State, 693 So. 2d 1138, 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). As we said in Meade (in regard to revocation of probation), “[bjecause this hearsay evidence was the only evidence Appellant was terminated ... from the treatment…
-
J.F. v. State, 889 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…in the burglary had implicated appellant). It is well-established, however, that probation can be revoked upon a combination of hearsay and non-hearsay evidence. See Lacey v. State, 831 So. 2d 1267, 1269 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)(citing Thomas v. State, 711 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)); see also Wilcox v. State, 770 So. 2d 733, 736 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)(holding that probation can be revoked on the basis of hearsay inadmissible at a criminal trial in combination with other admissible evidence). The problem in thi…
Previewing 3 of 21 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- McPHERSON v. State, 530 So. 2d 1095 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Purvis v. State, 420 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Mitchell v. State, 681 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Ware v. Walt Disney World Co. & Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n, 644 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Vezina v. State, 644 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Durden v. State, 577 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)