CHARLES ROBERTSON, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Standard Of Proof For Probation Revocation cases and more on FLexlaw
[*339] PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. The appellant, Charles Robertson, was placed on probation on December 9, 1998. He was accused of committing an attempted burglary later that same day. We reject his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence submitted at the hearing to revoke his probation. “Proof sufficient to allow a criminal conviction is not required to support a trial judge’s discretionary order revoking probation; the state need only show by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed the offense charged.” Amador v. State, 713 So. 2d 1121, 1122 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).
We also reject the appellant’s complaint that the trial court relied on hearsay evidence. Hearsay evidence is admissible in violation of probation hearings and can sustain a violation when corroborated by direct evidence. See Morris v. State, 727 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). Here, the prosecution presented the hearsay statements of the confidential informant which were corroborated by the direct observations of the police officers surveilling the scene of the attempted burglary. Thus, the evidence was sufficient to uphold the revocation of probation.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hendricks v. State, 59 So. 3d 368 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…robation.” Mata v. State, 31 So. 3d 257, 259 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (citation omitted). However, “[h]earsay evidence is admissible in violation of probation hearings and can sustain a violation when corroborated by direct evidence.” Robertson v. State, 800 So. 2d 338, 339 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (citing Morris v. State, 727 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)). Section 90.801(l)(c), Florida Statutes (2010), defines hearsay as “a statement, other than one made by the declar-ant while testifying at the trial or hearing, of…
-
Bryant v. State, 389 So. 3d 740 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)…evidence.” Id.; see also Clarington v. State, 314 So. 3d 495, 503 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (“Hearsay evidence is admissible in violation of probation hearings and can sustain a violation when corroborated by direct evidence.” (quoting Robertson v. State, 800 So. 2d 338, 339 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001))); Hall v. State, 744 So. 2d 517, 520 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (“The law is clear that a person’s probation cannot be revoked solely on the basis of hearsay evidence.”). Based on our independent review of the evidence presented dur…
-
Thaddeus Chaylon Martin v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)…sing the evidence and making those findings is fully consistent with the record of the evidentiary hearing. The State was only required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Martin committed the charged violations. Robertson v. State, 800 So. 2d 338, 339 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). Martin argues, in particular, that “[t]he State failed to prove that Martin had knowledge and dominion and control over the .22 caliber firearm, the sword, or the marijuana, or over the bedroom where the items were found.”…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Morris v. State, 727 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Gordon v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 713 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Amador v. State, 713 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)