DAHLGREN HAWKINS, 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.
Hawkins' probation revocation was affirmed despite reversal of one condition violation (drug evaluation) due to hearsay evidence, because substantial remaining violations including new law violations supported revocation.
A probation revocation may be affirmed despite reversal of one condition violation when remaining violations, including new law violations, are substantial and independently support revocation.
[1] Hearsay testimony of a probation officer is insufficient to support a probation violation when the State fails to introduce the probation file into evidence under the bus…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“when an appellate court reverses a violation of community control, the court need not remand for reconsideration of whether to revoke community control when remaining violations are substantial”
Citing Mitchell v. State for the principle that substantial remaining violations support affirming revocation despite reversal of one violation
Dahlgren Hawkins was on drug offender probation and was charged with violations including failure to obtain a drug evaluation within thirty days, as w…
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 Substantial Violation Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
SILBERMAN, Judge.
Dahlgren Hawkins appeals the revocation of his drug offender probation and resulting sentences for grand theft motor vehicle, burglary of a dwelling, grand theft third degree, and possession of cocaine.
We affirm the revocation of probation and resulting sentences; however, we reverse the revocation order as to the finding of a violation of condition 13, that Hawkins obtain a drug evaluation within thirty days, because the State presented only hearsay evidence to support the violation. See Johnson v. State, 691 So. 2d 43, 44 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (determining that hearsay testimony of probation officer was insufficient to support a violation when the State failed to introduce the probation file into evidence under the business records exception to the hearsay rule).
Because the remaining violations of probation, which include new law violations, are substantial, we affirm the revocation of probation. See Mitchell v. State, 871 So. 2d 1040, 1042 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (recognizing that when an appellate court reverses a violation of community control, the court need not remand for reconsideration of whether to revoke community control when remaining violations are substantial).
Thus, we remand for the trial court to strike the finding of a violation of condition 13 from the revocation order.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
FULMER and VILLANTI, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Matthews v. State, 943 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…evidence demonstrating by the greater weight of the evidence that Mr. Matthews committed the new law violations of possession and delivery of cocaine. That fact in itself was a sufficient basis on which to revoke his probation. See Hawkins v. State, 884 So. 2d 496, 496-97 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (“Because the remaining violations of probation, which include new law violations, are substantial, we affirm the revocation of probation.”). Accordingly, we affirm the order revoking the defendant’s probation but remand…
-
Martin v. State, 903 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…d that Martin absconded from his community control. Thus, we affirm the revocation, but we reverse the revocation order in part and remand for the trial court to strike the finding of a violation of condition 10 from the order. See Hawkins v. State, 884 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. STRINGER and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Mitchell v. State, 871 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Fordham v. State, 691 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)