ROLAND RAMSEY A/K/A ROLEN RAMSEY, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Business Records Exception To Hearsay Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
[*780] BROWNING, J.
Roland Ramsey, a/k/a Rolen Ramsey (Appellant), appeals a final order revoking his probation and sentencing him to 15 years’ incarceration. Finding no material factual distinctions between the case at bar and Peters v. State, 919 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), we affirm the revocation order. See Davis v. State, 562 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (concluding that testimony of lab toxicologist supervisor, as custodian of urine test report, qualified report as “business record” under exception to hearsay rule, justifying admission of record in parole revocation hearing, in absence of any showing of lack of trustworthiness of report). The urine test report prepared by the independent lab corroborated the testimony of Appellant’s probation supervisor, who stated that the urine sample taken from Appellant had tested positive for cocaine in the preliminary field test. The written results of that field test were admitted into evidence without an objection. We re-certify the question of great public importance set forth in Peters.
AFFIRMED.
DAVIS and LEWIS, JJ. concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Massery v. State, 953 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…orthiness in the lab report, the report will be inadmissible. See § 90.803(6)(a), Fla. Stat. Id. at 627-28. In fact, we have applied the Peters reasoning in a probation revocation case not involving a true split sentence. . See Ramsey v. State, 921 So. 2d 779 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). There is no valid basis for treating other types of probation revocation cases differently than those involving true split sentencing.…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Davis v. State, 562 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Peters v. State, 919 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)