CHONTON FORBES, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Chonton Forbes appeals his probation revocation for alleged cocaine possession. The court reverses the revocation, finding insufficient evidence to support the violation because the trial court relied solely on an inadmissible hearsay lab report without corroborating evidence such as officer testimony or field test results.
The court reversed the probation revocation, holding that hearsay evidence alone is insufficient to revoke probation. While lab reports are admissible as hearsay at probation violation hearings, they cannot support revocation without additional reliable evidence, such as testimony from an officer experienced in cocaine identification or positive field test results.
[1] Hearsay alone is insufficient evidence to revoke probation.
[2] A lab report is admissible as hearsay at a probation violation hearing.
Previewing 2 of 6 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 alone is an insufficient basis upon which to revoke probation”
Establishes the fundamental legal principle governing probation revocation hearings—that hearsay evidence cannot independently support a revocation decision.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn February 13, 2008, Forbes was arrested after police observed him on a bicycle engaging in a currency exchange. Officers searched him and found two …
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 Business Records Exception To Hearsay Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant appeals from a violation and revocation of probation for attempted strong-arm robbery. We reverse the rev*233ocation of probation on the ground that there is insufficient evidence from which the trial court could have concluded that the defendant violated his probation.
On February 14, 2008, the State filed an affidavit of violation of probation alleging violation of the terms of the defendant’s probation by failing to live without violating the law, in that, on February 13, 2008, he was arrested for the purchase and possession of cocaine. The defendant’s probation was revoked and he was given credit for time served from the date of his arrest. At his violation of probation hearing, a City of Miami Police officer with the Crime Suppression Unit testified that, while on surveillance duty on February 14, 2008, he observed the defendant ride up on a bicycle and engage in conversation and exchange currency for an unknown item. Another tactical unit stopped the defendant, searched him, and found in his pocket two plastic baggies containing what the officer suspected was powder cocaine. No field tests were conducted on the suspect cocaine and it was impounded and given to the lab. The officer could not offer an opinion as to whether the substance in the baggies was cocaine. Over defense objection, a lab report with a positive indication of cocaine was entered into evidence. The defendant testified that he did not have cocaine in his possession and denied having two baggies of powder cocaine. He stated that the officers found scratch-off tickets in his pockets. He admitted to smoking crack cocaine on the night before his arrest. Based upon the defendant’s admission, the officer’s testimony and the lab report, the trial eourt found that the defendant had violated his probation and revoked it. The defendant was sentenced to five years in prison as a habitual offender and given credit for time served from the date of his arrest. The trial judge denied defense counsel’s request for additional credit for time served.
The standard of review of the trial court’s revocation of probation is abuse of discretion. State v. Carter, 835 So.2d 259 (Fla.2002). We agree with the defendant that the lab report was not admissible into evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule. See Hogan v. State, 583 So.2d 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (holding that, at a probation revocation hearing, the business records exception to the hearsay rule is inapplicable when no one from the lab testifies as to knowledge of testing and reporting procedure; therefore the lab report is inadmissible). The lab report is nevertheless admissible as hearsay at a probation violation hearing. Isaac v. State, 971 So.2d 908 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). However, hearsay alone is an insufficient basis upon which to revoke probation. Isaac v. State, 971 So.2d at 908; Weaver v. State, 543 So.2d 443 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Because no further evidence, such as testimony from an officer experienced in the handling of and arrests for cocaine, or the positive results of a field test, reliably identified the substance in the defendant’s possession as cocaine, the hearsay evidence contained in the lab report cannot support the order revoking the defendant’s probation. Legree v. State, 739 So.2d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Hogan, 583 So.2d at 426. But cf. Sinclair v. State, 995 So.2d 552 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (holding that identification of cocaine by the arresting officer at probation violation hearing is sufficient for revocation where the officer worked street level narcotics and handled cocaine daily, even though the State did not produce a written lab report), review denied, 8 So.3d 358 (Fla.2009). Since the lab report was the only evidence establishing that the substance found in possession of the defendant was cocaine, we find it an insufficient *234basis, without more, to revoke the defendant’s probation.1
The State concedes error on the point that the time the defendant spent in jail on the portion of his original sentence should be calculated in addition to the time spent in jail on the probation violation, in order to establish the defendant’s proper credit for time served.
Reversed and remanded for resentenc-ing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McDOUGHALL v. State, 133 So. 3d 1097 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…codone. Accordingly, the responding officer’s uncorroborated hearsay testimony was not sufficient evidence to support the court’s revocation of McDoughall’s probation based on the new charges for drug possession and trafficking. See Forbes v. State, 38 So. 3d 232, 233-34 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); see also Lewis v. State, 995 So. 2d 1123, 1124-25 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). Because we find that the evidence was insufficient to prove that the pills were illegal substances, we also sustain McDoughall’s challenges to the tri…
-
Bray v. State, 75 So. 3d 749 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…e in a revocation proceeding, revocation may not be solely based on hearsay. Hogan v. State, 583 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Legree v. State, 739 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). The laboratory report was hearsay. Hogan v. State; Forbes v. State, 38 So. 3d 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). Moreover, the testimony of the community control officers was hearsay. While both officers testified that they had conducted hundreds of urinalyses, neither testified as to any expertise as to narcotics or drug testing. Under suc…
-
Duquesne v. State, 242 So. 3d 1183 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)…encing the defendant to ten years in prison. The defendant’s appeal followed. We review the trial court’s revocation of the defendant’s probation for an abuse of discretion. See State v. Carter, 835 So. 2d 259, 262 (Fla. 2002); Forbes v. State, 38 So. 3d 232, 233 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). Further, “[a]s part of such review, ‘there must be evidence in the record to support a finding that any violation was willful and substantial.’” Harris v. State, 898 So. 2d 1126, 1127 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (quoting Rubio v…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Carter, 835 So. 2d 259 (Fla. 2002)
- Weaver v. State, 543 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Hogan v. State, 583 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Sinclair v. State, 995 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- Isaac v. State, 971 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)
- Legree v. State, 739 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)