DAVID ISOM, 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.
David Isom appeals the revocation of his probation following his guilty plea to sexual battery and related charges. The court affirmed the revocation, finding competent and substantial evidence of multiple probation violations including unsupervised contact with minors, dishonesty with his probation officer, and failure to comply with registration and licensing requirements.
The court held that the probation officer's testimony about Isom's denial was not hearsay because it was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. The court also found competent and substantial evidence supported all probation violation findings. The court would affirm even if the state failed to prove Isom's ability to pay for the polygraph examination.
[1] A statement made by a defendant to a probation officer is not hearsay when offered to prove the defendant's denial of a fact, rather than the truth of the fact denied.
[2] Competent and substantial evidence is sufficient to support a trial court's findings of probation violations.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 is "a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted."”
Defines hearsay and establishes the framework for analyzing Isom's hearsay objection.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIsom pleaded guilty to sexual battery on a physically helpless person, interfering with custody, and lewd and lascivious act on a child, receiving 10 …
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 Definition (Fla. Stat. § 90.801(1)(C)) cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, C.J.
David Isom appeals after the revocation of his probation.
Isom pleaded guilty to sexual battery on a physically helpless person, interfering with custody, and lewd and lascivious act on a child, and was sentenced to 10 years of probation. An affidavit of probation violation was filed, but the court dismissed it, later stating that it had given Isom a break. The current allegations were that Isom violated probation by having unsupervised contact with minors, lying to his probation officer, and failing to comply with his probation officer’s instructions to take a lie detector test and complete a rehabilitation program. He was also alleged to have violated the law by failing to register with the Department of Motor Vehicles within 48 hours of changing residence and by driving without a valid driver’s license.
Isom contends that the court should have rejected as hearsay the probation officer’s testimony that, when questioned by the probation officer, Isom denied having used an alias when he signed in as a visitor at a middle school. Hearsay is “a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” § 90.801(l)(c), Fla. Stat. Here, Isom’s statement was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, so it was not, as he contends, hearsay. As to the other allegations, we conclude there was competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court’s findings that Isom committed the violations. Further, we would affirm even if the state did not meet its burden of proving that Isom had the ability to pay $175 for a polygraph examination. Cf. Johnson v. State, 668 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).
AFFIRMED.
PETERSON and PLEUS, JJ., concur.