CALVIN GRIFFIN, 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 court held that even if some grounds for probation revocation are based on hearsay, the revocation can be affirmed if another ground, not based on hearsay, is substantial and would have led to the same outcome.
Appellant's probation was revoked for four reasons, three of which were based solely on hearsay. The fourth reason was possession of cannabis. Appella…
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 Evidence In Probation Revocation Hearings cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, Judge.
The trial court revoked appellant’s probation for four reasons: (1) failing to pay supervision costs; (2) changing residences without permission; (3) failing to be evaluated for drug rehabilitation program; and (4) possessing cannabis. He appeals on the ground that the first three violations were based solely on hearsay. Kiess v. State, 642 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). He asks us to reverse and remand for the trial court to consider whether to revoke for the sole remaining violation of cannabis possession. The state concedes that three of the four reasons were improperly based only on hearsay, but urges us not to remand for consideration of whether the remaining reason supports revocation because the first three reasons were insubstantial in relation to the possession violation.
In Wilson v. State, 506 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), probation was revoked for failing to file monthly reports, commission of grand theft, and dealing in stolen property. Although the third district found that the stolen property charge could not be sustained, it affirmed the other two grounds and concluded that it was not necessary to remand the case for reconsideration of revocation because it was convinced that neither the revocation nor the sentence imposed would have been affected by the deletion of the one ground.
In this case, the drug possession ground was by far the most serious ground for revoking, and we have concluded, as the court did in Wilson, that there is no reason to remand. We therefore affirm, but only on the drug possession.
WARNER, J., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., JR., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Baker v. State, 789 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…supports the State’s contention in this regard. Moreover, it is clear to us that the trial judge would have imposed the same sentence absent the violations charged in counts IV and V. Consequently, we affirm the order appealed. See Griffin v. State, 719 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Olvey v. State, 707 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). We remand the case so that the trial court may enter an amended order of revocation, citing only the violation charged in count III. Baker need not be present when the amende…
-
LEE v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 730 So. 2d 827 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…second violation alone); Llumbet v. State, 698 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (remanding because it could not be told from record if the court would have revoked community control based solely on the remaining two violations); with Griffin v. State, 719 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (declining to remand because the remaining violation was clearly the most serious of the charged violations); Smith v. State, 705 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (declining to remand because comments in the record made it clear th…
-
Jarvis Gaines v. State, 800 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…thermore, even if the violation for resisting without violence were omitted, and even if the felony battery were to be reduced to simple battery, we would not remand because of the significance of the remaining violations. See e.g. Griffin v. State, 719 So. 2d 972 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). AFFIRMED. SHARP, W. and HARRIS, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kiess v. State, 642 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Wilson v. State, 506 So. 2d 1170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)