BENJAMIN THOMPSON, 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.
A circuit court cannot revoke probation or community control based solely on hearsay evidence presented by the State.
The State sought to revoke Benjamin Thompson's community control based on his alleged violation of a drug treatment program condition. The State's onl…
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 Evidence In Probation Revocation Hearings cases and more on FLexlaw
NORTHCUTT, Judge.
A circuit court may not revoke probation or community control when the State presents only hearsay evidence to prove that the defendant violated the terms of supervision. For this reason, we reverse the order revoking Benjamin Thompson’s community control for violating the condition that he successfully complete a drug treatment program.
The State bears the burden of proving a willful and substantial violation of supervision. Although hearsay evidence is admissible at the revocation hearing, the defendant’s probation or community control cannot be revoked solely on the basis of hearsay. Knight v. State, 801 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). “ ‘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(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2002).
In this case, the State called Thompson’s supervising officer as its only witness. The officer testified that he was informed that Thompson was being discharged from the treatment program; the officer also testified that he had “contacted the center on several times, spoken with different people and the statements [were] all the same that the defendant did not comply with the rules and regulations and, therefore, [was] administratively discharged.” This testimony was hearsay. See Grimsley v. State, 830 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); see also Clemons v. State, 388 So. 2d 639, 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (reversing when “[t]he only evidence introduced concerning appellant’s alleged violation of condition 3 ... was the hearsay testimony of the probation supervisor about what appellant’s employer had said in a telephone conversation”). Therefore, we reverse.
Reversed and remanded.
KELLY and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stewart v. State, 926 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…2d DCA 1996); Green v. State, 620 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). State v. Meeks, 789 So. 2d 982, 987 (Fla.2001). “The State bears the burden of proving a willful and substantial violation of supervision” by competent evidence. Thompson v. State, 890 So. 2d 382, 383 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (“Although hearsay evidence is admissible at the revocation hearing, the defendant’s probation or community control cannot be revoked solely on the basis of hearsay. Knight v. State, 801 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).”). At…
-
Gauthier v. State, 949 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…en he did not sleep there. Because Mr. Gauthier did not have a curfew, the hearsay testimony from the probation officer alone was insufficient to support a finding that he had changed his approved residence without permission. See Thompson v. State, 890 So. 2d 382, 383 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (explaining that although hearsay evidence is admissible at revocation hearing, defendant’s probation or community control cannot be revoked solely on basis of hearsay). Accordingly, we reverse the order revoking Mr. Gauthi…
-
Lanier v. State, 936 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…However, the only evidence supporting the violations of conditions 1, 7, and 47 was hearsay. Although it is true that hearsay evidence is admissible at a revocation hearing, revocation may not be based solely on hearsay evidence. Thompson v. State, 890 So. 2d 382, 383 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Clemons v. State, 388 So. 2d 639, 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). In Thompson, this court held that testimony from Thompson’s probation officer as to what the officer was told by “someone” at a drug treatment program about Thompson’…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Clemons v. State, 388 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- Grimsley v. State, 830 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Knight v. State, 801 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)