MILTON GAREY, JR., 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.
Milton Garey challenges the revocation of his probation based on alleged violations of conditions three and five. The court reverses the revocation order because the trial court relied solely on hearsay evidence for condition three violations and failed to specify which of thirteen alleged condition five violations it actually found proven.
Probation cannot be revoked solely on the basis of hearsay evidence. The revocation order must enumerate the particular violations upon which the trial court based its decision. If the trial court found all alleged violations proven when evidence did not support all of them, reversal is required.
[1] Probation cannot be revoked solely on the basis of hearsay evidence.
[2] A probation revocation order must enumerate the particular violations upon which the revocation is based.
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“probation cannot be revoked solely on the basis of hearsay”
Establishes the controlling legal standard that hearsay alone is insufficient to support probation revocation, despite hearsay being generally admissible in such proceedings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Garey was on probation and was alleged to have violated conditions three and five thereof. The revocation order did not specify the particul…
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
JOANOS, J.
In this appeal, appellant challenges the order revoking his probation, and the sentence imposed thereon. The revocation order indicates that appellant was found guilty of violating conditions three and five of his probation, without indicating the particular charges set forth in the affidavit of violation of probation which appellant was determined to have committed. As to the alleged violations of condition three, only hearsay evidence was introduced to support the allegations. Although hearsay is permitted in probation revocation proceedings, probation cannot be revoked solely on the basis of hearsay. See Green v. State, 620 So. 2d 1126, 1129 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Davis v. State, 510 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Gomez v. State, 724 So. 2d 1205, 1206 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). As to the alleged violations of condition five, we are unable to determine whether the trial court determined that appellant committed all thirteen of the alleged violations. If that were the case, reversal would be mandated because evidence was not introduced to support violation of all the allegations set forth in the affidavit.
Therefore, we reverse the order revoking appellant’s probation and the sentence imposed thereon, and remand this cause for entry of a new order which enumerates the particular violations of condition five upon which the trial court based the revocation of probation. Since our decision in this regard will require a new sentencing proceeding, we do not address the other issues raised in the appeal.
Accordingly, the order of revocation of probation and the sentencing disposition are reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
WEBSTER and PADOVANO, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Winbush v. State, 937 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…trial court erred in revoking her probation because the evidence the state presented was based solely on hearsay. We do not agree. Although the rule is clear that a probation-violation order cannot be supported solely by hearsay, see Garey v. State, 747 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), the rule is equally clear that such an order may be appropriately grounded on a combination of both hearsay and non-hearsay evidence. See Lacey v. State, 831 So. 2d 1267, 1269 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). In the [*770] instant case, whi…
Authorities Cited
- Ladon Maurice Green v. State, 620 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Davis v. State, 510 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Gomez v. State, 724 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)