WILLIE RENDER, 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.
Willie Render appeals the revocation of his probation for allegedly committing criminal mischief. The court reversed the revocation, holding that the state presented only hearsay evidence insufficient to support the violation charged in the probation affidavit.
The revocation was improper because the state presented only hearsay evidence of the specific crime charged (criminal mischief). Render's admissions after Miranda warnings indicated possible assault, not criminal mischief as alleged in the affidavit. Hearsay evidence standing alone, or combined with admissions to a different offense, is insufficient to revoke probation.
[1] Hearsay evidence is admissible at a probation revocation hearing, but standing alone, it is insufficient to establish a violation of a condition of probation.
[2] A probation revocation can be grounded on hearsay evidence combined with evidence which is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Hearsay evidence is admissible at a probation revocation hearing, but standing alone, it is insufficient to establish a violation of a condition of probation.”
Establishes the foundational rule that hearsay alone cannot support probation revocation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRender's probation was revoked based on an allegation that he committed criminal mischief by throwing a rock that broke a vehicle's windshield. At the…
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 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Willie Render appeals the judgment and sentence entered following the revocation of his probation. We reverse and remand with instructions to reinstate Render’s probation.
Render’s probation was revoked on the ground that he committed criminal mischief, contrary to condition (5) of his probation. He asserts that the state presented only hearsay evidence in support of the offense charged. The state counters that Render’s post-Miranda admission, coupled with the officer’s hearsay testimony, was sufficient to permit the trial court to revoke his probation.
At the revocation hearing, the police officer testified that he responded to a call that a group of people had been throwing rocks; that when he arrived at the scene a vehicle’s windshield was broken; that he had not seen who had thrown the rock that broke the windshield but the owner of the vehicle told him Render threw the rock.
The trial court overruled Render’s objection to this testimony and the officer further testified that following Render’s arrest and Miranda warning, Render denied throwing the rock that broke the windshield, but admitted he was in the area and threw rocks at other juveniles. The owner of the vehicle did not testify at the revocation hearing and no other evidence of criminal mischief was introduced. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial judge revoked Render’s probation and sentenced Render to a term of two years followed by two years probation, with credit for 120 days time served.
The standard of review of an order revoking probation is whether the trial court abused its discretion. See Steiner v. State, 604 So. 2d 1265, 1267 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). Hearsay evidence is admissible at a probation revocation hearing, but standing alone, it is insufficient to establish a violation of a condition of probation. See Anderson v. State, 711 So. 2d 106, 108 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Ford v. State, 678 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Kiess v. State, 642 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). However, a revocation can be grounded on hearsay evidence combined with evidence which is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. See Thomas v. State, 711 So. 2d 96, 97 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
But, “[a]n order of revocation may not be based upon a violation not charged in the affidavit.” Joseph v. State, 615 So. 2d 833, 834 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); see Harrington v. State, 570 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). In the instant case, the affidavit charged Render with committing criminal mischief which is defined as willful and malicious injury or damage, by any means, to someone else’s real or per sonal property, including placement of graffiti thereon or other acts of vandalism therein. See § 806.13(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (1995). Render’s admissions after receiving Miranda warnings indicate the possible commission of assault, not criminal mischief as charged in the affidavit.
Consequently, Render’s admission does not constitute non-hearsay evidence sufficient to support the trial court’s ruling that Render committed criminal mischief.
Thus, because the state presented only hearsay evidence that Render committed criminal mischief, we conclude that the trial court erred in revoking Render’s probation. Therefore, we reverse and remand with instructions to reinstate Render’s probation. See Harrington v. State, 570 So. 2d at 1142-43.
GUNTHER, FARMER, and KLEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sagner v. State, 776 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…y did not state the date of the battery or the name of the victim and did not furnish competent evidence that the offense occurred during the probationary period. A revocation of probation cannot stand on hearsay evidence alone. See Render v. State, 755 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Anderson v. State, 711 So. 2d-106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Accordingly we reverse the trial court’s order revoking appellant’s probation. REVERSED. DELL, STEVENSON and GROSS, JJ, concur.…
-
Gonzalez v. State, 814 So. 2d 1210 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…This was hearsay. “Hearsay, though admissible in a probation revocation hearing, is insufficient standing alone to establish a violation of a condition of probation.” Wilcox v. State, 770 So. 2d 733, 735 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); accord Render v. State, 755 So. 2d 653, 654 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). We affirm the trial court’s finding that appellant violated his probation for failing to file monthly reports. The record does not reflect whether the trial court would have revoked appellant’s probation based only on t…
-
Critsley v. State, 846 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…cer.1 It is undisputed that hearsay evidence, while admissible in probation revocation proceedings, cannot constitute the sole basis for a finding of violation of probation. See Sagner v. State, 776 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Render v. State, 755 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). However, a revocation can be grounded on hearsay evidence combined with evidence which is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. See Render, 755 So. 2d at 653. In this case, the evidence presented at the revocation hea…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Steiner v. State, 604 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Thomas v. State, 711 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Kiess v. State, 642 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Anderson v. State, 711 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Burtless v. Pallero, 570 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Harrington v. State, 570 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Joseph v. State, 615 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Donovan Ford v. State, 678 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Wareham v. State, 678 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)