NAKIA DAWSON, 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.
Nakia Dawson appeals the revocation of her probation for abuse of a disabled adult. The Florida First District Court of Appeal reversed because the trial court improperly relied solely on hearsay evidence to support the revocation, violating the rule that probation cannot be revoked based solely on hearsay testimony.
The court reversed the probation revocation because the trial court improperly relied solely on hearsay evidence. Probation may not be revoked based solely on hearsay evidence, and in this case, the only evidence that Appellant worked with a disabled individual was Ms. Donaldson's hearsay account of what another employee told her.
[1] Probation may not be revoked based solely on hearsay evidence.
[2] A trial court errs in revoking probation when the only evidence presented is hearsay testimony.
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“probation may not be revoked based solely on hearsay evidence”
Establishes the governing legal rule that hearsay cannot be the sole basis for probation revocation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDawson was convicted of abuse of a disabled adult with adjudication withheld and was placed on 36 months' probation with a special condition prohibiti…
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
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order revoking Appellant’s probation, adjudicating her guilty of abuse of a disabled adult, and sentencing her to 30 months’ imprisonment. Because the trial court relied on hearsay evidence to revoke Appellant’s probation, we reverse.
Appellant was convicted of abuse of a disabled adult, adjudication was withheld, and she was placed on probation for 36 months. Appellant was charged with violating the special condition of her probation prohibiting her from working with disabled individuals. At the revocation hearing, Mary Lee Donaldson, an employee of TLC Caregivers, a company which provides services to the elderly and disabled, testified that she hired Appellant to work for TLC Caregivers. Ms. Donaldson testified that Appellant was assigned to work at the hospital. Ms. Donaldson admitted that she never saw Appellant at the hospital, but that another employee informed her that Appellant was present at the hospital. Appellant denied reporting to the hospital.
The trial court, noting that' Ms. Donaldson’s testimony was hearsay, revoked Appellant’s probation.
“The trial court has broad discretion to determine whether there has been a willful and substantial violation of a term of probation and whether such a violation has been demonstrated by the greater weight of the evidence.” State v. Carter, 835 So. 2d 259, 262 (Fla.2002).
However, probation may not be revoked based solely on hearsay evidence. J.F. v. State, 889 So. 2d 130, 131 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004).
In this case, the only evidence that showed that Appellant worked with a disabled individual was Ms. Donaldson’s hearsay testimony. It was error for the trial court to rely solely on hearsay evidence in revoking Appellant’s probation. Id. at 131 (holding that it was error for the trial court to revoke the appellant’s probation for committing grand theft when the only evidence linking him to the crime was an officer’s testimony that another officer had seen the appellant with the recently stolen property); Thompson v. State, 890 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (holding that an officer’s testimony that a third party informed him that the appellant failed to complete a treatment program was hearsay and could not be a basis for revocation of probation).
Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s revocation of Appellant’s probation.
REVERSED.
KAHN, C.J., PADOVANO and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stewart v. State, 926 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…mounted to a “willful” or “substantial” violation of the conditions of community control was the director’s hearsay testimony. The trial court impermissibly relied on this hearsay evidence. See Thompson, 890 So. 2d at 383. See also Dawson v. State, 921 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Meade v. State, 799 So. 2d 430, 433 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Gammon v. State, 778 So. 2d 390, 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Thomas v. State, 711 So. 2d 96, 97 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Andrews v. State, 693 So. 2d 1138, 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997…
-
Aaron v. Thompson, 965 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…robation officer, who had never met appellant, [*1252] recounting her colleague’s notes. Appellant is correct that this is hearsay evidence, which standing alone, cannot be used to support a finding of guilt as to those charges. See Dawson v. State, 921 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (holding that hearsay testimony, alone, is insufficient to support a revocation of probation); Meade v. State, 799 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (holding that evidence in the form of a probation officer’s testimony regarding a r…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Carter, 835 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 2002)
- J.F. v. State, 889 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Thompson v. State, 890 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)