JOHN SMITH, 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.
John Smith appealed the revocation of his community control after a probation officer conducted a surprise visit and failed to locate him at his stated workplace. The court reversed the revocation order because the State presented insufficient evidence to prove Smith violated his supervision conditions by a preponderance of the evidence.
The State failed to present sufficient evidence to support the revocation. The absence of Smith's car and the statement of an unidentified woman were insufficient to prove Smith was not at work, given that his duties required him to be off-premises picking up or unloading supplies.
[1] Hearsay evidence is admissible in community control revocation proceedings but may not serve as the sole basis for revocation.
[2] The State bears the burden of proving a willful and substantial violation of community control conditions by a preponderance of the evidence.
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“In revocation proceedings, the State has the burden of proving a willful and substantial violation of the conditions of supervision by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Establishes the legal standard the State must meet to revoke community control.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceField Officer J. Dyer visited Smith's workplace, the Gold Rush Club, on September 28, 1999, at approximately 6:30 p.m. Smith works as a bathroom atten…
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 Willful And Substantial Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
STRINGER, Judge.
John Smith challenges an order revoking his community control. Because the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support the revocation order, we reverse.
In revocation proceedings, the State has the burden of proving a willful and substantial violation of the conditions of supervision by a preponderance of the evidence. Gammon v. State, 778 So. 2d 390, 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Although hearsay evidence is admissible in revocation proceedings, it may not serve as the sole basis for revocation. Id. at 391.
At the revocation hearing in the present case, Field Officer J. Dyer testified that she visited Smith’s place of employment, the Gold Rush Club, at approximately 6:30 p.m. on September 28, 1999. Smith is a bathroom attendant at the club and is responsible for picking up and delivering his own supplies, which he unloads at the back of the building. When Ms. Dyer arrived at the club, she surveyed the parking lot for Smith’s car but was unable to locate it. Ms. Dyer entered the establishment where she met a female, “a Melissa or Missy,” and asked if Smith was present. The female told Ms. Dyer that Smith was not there. Ms. Dyer did not ask to see a manager or supervisor in order to confirm Smith’s absence. Although she was aware that Smith’s post was at the men’s room, she did not look for him there.
Ms. Dyer checked the lot for Smith’s car once more before leaving the club and then proceeded to Smith’s residence. Smith was not at home, and his roommate did not know where he was. Ms. Dyer testified that she had made contact with Smith on one other occasion, at which time Smith pointed out his car and said, “Wherever this car is, I am [t]here.” Smith maintains that he was at work on September 28, 1999, and at the revocation hearing, he presented the testimony of a former supervisor to confirm his attendance.
Although Smith told Ms. Dyer that she could always find him by locating his car, and Ms. Dyer did not see Smith’s car in the parking lot, this was insufficient to prove that Smith was not at work. The record indicates that Smith’s duties as men’s room attendant at the Gold Rush Club required him to pick up and stock his own supplies. Therefore, at the time of Ms. Dyer’s visit, Smith may have been off the premises picking up supplies or unloading them at the back of the building. Additionally, the statement of the unidentified woman (Melissa or Missy), who did not testify at the hearing and who may or may not have been employed at the club, was also insufficient to prove that Smith was not at work on the day in question. Because the State failed to establish the alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence, the revocation order is reversed.
Reversed.
ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and SALCINES, J., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brown v. State, 813 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…f discretion. Williams v. State, 764 So. 2d 757 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). In [*204] revocation proceedings, the State has the burden of proving willful and substantial violations of conditions of supervision by a preponderance of evidence. Smith v. State, 788 So. 2d 1131, 1132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). As to the alleged violation of condition twelve, the State produced no evidence to prove that Brown was not at home for the officer’s 2 a.m. visit. Establishing that no one answered the door at that unreasonable hour of the…
-
W.B.S. v. State, 851 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…n the facts establishing the felony battery. See Louis v. State, 797 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). A violation of community control needs to be proven only by a preponderance of the evidence, rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. Smith v. State, 788 So. 2d 1131 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Here, the State showed by a preponderance of the evidence that W.B.S. and two other boys attacked, beat, and kicked another boy. This evidence supported the finding that W.B.S. violated his community control due to a new law viol…
Authorities Cited
- Gammon v. State, 778 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)