BEVERLY LEGREE, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Violation Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We find no error in the trial court’s decision to revoke the defendant’s probation on the ground that she failed to complete her community service work. Likewise, the record supports the trial court’s conclusion that the defendant failed to complete the course of drug treatment required as a condition of probation. The trial court erred, however, in concluding that the defendant used cocaine during the probationary period. The state attempted to prove this charge by introducing laboratory reports showing that the defendant had tested positive for cocaine. These reports are hearsay. Although the reports were admissible, they cannot serve as the sole evidentiary basis for the charged violation. See Hogan v. State, 583 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
Because we cannot determine whether the trial court would have revoked the defendant’s probation and imposed the same sentence based on the two valid violations, we reverse the revocation order for further proceedings in the trial court. See Mathis v. State, 683 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Llumbet v. State, 698 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
BARFIELD, C.J., VAN NORTWICK and PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Meade v. State, 799 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…mony and the treatment counsel- or’s report were hearsay and, because the probation officer neither prepared nor was the custodian of the treatment counselor’s report, the report was not subject to the business record exception. See Legree v. State, 739 So. 2d 616, 617 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (while hearsay is admissible at a revocation hearing, it cannot be the sole basis for a finding of violation); see also § 90.803(6), Fla. Stat.; Love v. Garcia, 634 So. 2d 158, 160 (Fla.1994) (for a document to be admitted u…
-
Blackshear v. State, 838 So. 2d 1228 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…2d 184 (Fla.1994), we must reverse as to condition six for a lack of sufficient evidence of excessive intoxicant use or visiting a place that intoxicants are used. See also Blair v. State, 745 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 1st [*1230] DCA 1999); Legree v. State, 739 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Hogan v. State, 583 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). While we must remand, we note, as did the supreme court in Alston, that a single positive urinalysis as in this case could constitute sufficient evidence that appellant viola…
-
Bray v. State, 75 So. 3d 749 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…oratory report and the testimony of the community control officers. While hearsay evidence is admissible in a revocation proceeding, revocation may not be solely based on hearsay. Hogan v. State, 583 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Legree v. State, 739 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). The laboratory report was hearsay. Hogan v. State; Forbes v. State, 38 So. 3d 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). Moreover, the testimony of the community control officers was hearsay. While both officers testified that they had conducted h…
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
- Hogan v. State, 583 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Still v. Polecat Indus., Inc., 683 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Llumbet v. State, 698 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)