ALFRED HENDRICKS, 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.
Alfred Hendricks appealed his revocation of community control, arguing the State presented only inadmissible hearsay evidence at his violation hearing. The Fourth District Court of Appeal agreed and reversed the revocation, holding that hearsay evidence alone cannot sustain a probation/community control revocation without corroborating direct evidence.
The court reversed the revocation, holding that hearsay evidence alone is insufficient to sustain a revocation of community control and must be corroborated by direct evidence. Because the State presented only uncorroborated hearsay—the victim did not testify and there was no independent verification of her identity—the revocation was improper.
[1] Hearsay evidence alone is insufficient to sustain a revocation of community control.
[2] Hearsay evidence is admissible in violation of community control hearings and can sustain a violation when corroborated by direct evidence.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 insufficient to sustain a revocation of probation.”
Establishes the fundamental rule that hearsay evidence cannot be the sole basis for revoking probation or community control
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHendricks pled no contest to attempted first degree murder and received a sentence including two years of community control. The State alleged violati…
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 Corroboration Of Hearsay cases and more on FLexlaw
Alfred Hendricks appeals his revocation of community control, contending the State submitted only hearsay evidence. We agree, and reverse and remand to the trial court for reinstatement of Hendricks’s community control.
Hendricks pled no contest to a charge of attempted first degree murder. The court sentenced Hendricks to 364 days of jail time, followed by two years of community control, followed by seven years of probation. In 2008, the State filed an affidavit of violation of community control, contending that Hendricks had violated three conditions. Hendricks admitted the violations and the court revoked his community control, sentencing him to one year and one day in prison, followed by one year of community control, followed by seven years of probation. In 2009, the State then filed a second affidavit of violation of community control, alleging several violations that included Hendricks having contact with the victim, Nichola Hamilton. It is this later alleged violation which was the subject of Hendricks’s violation of community control hearing.
At the hearing on Hendricks’s violations of community control, three law enforcement officers testified. Notably, the victim, Nichola Hamilton, did not testify at the hearing. Detective James Jaggers confirmed that on July 3, 2009, he responded to a “violent domestic” call at a *370Fort Lauderdale apartment. As the first responding officers had already identified the woman at the scene as Nichola Hamilton-Stennatt, Detective Jaggers did not request additional identification. Detective Jaggers also did not verify with the landlord that Ms. Hamilton-Stennatt resided within the apartment.
Ms. Hamilton-Stennatt then gave Detective Jaggers a sworn statement. She indicated that “she was living in the residence with Mr. Hendricks and her son ... and that they had a verbal argument that escalated into a physical argument where Mr. Hendricks attacked her.” Ultimately, the court determined that Hendricks had violated the conditions of his community control by having contact with the victim, and sentenced Hendricks to ten years in prison.
We review an order revoking community control for an abuse of discretion. See Correa v. State, 43 So.3d 738, 743 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (citation omitted). “When seeking to revoke a defendant’s community control, the State must prove by the greater weight of the evidence that a willful and substantial violation occurred.” Id. (citing Anthony v. State, 854 So.2d 744, 747 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)).
The trial court erred in revoking Hendricks’s community control because the State presented only hearsay evidence. “[H]earsay alone is insufficient to sustain a revocation of probation.” Mata v. State, 31 So.3d 257, 259 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (citation omitted). However, “[h]earsay evidence is admissible in violation of probation hearings and can sustain a violation when corroborated by direct evidence.” Robertson v. State, 800 So.2d 338, 339 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (citing Morris v. State, 727 So.2d 975 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)).
Section 90.801(l)(c), Florida Statutes (2010), defines hearsay as “a statement, other than one made by the declar-ant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” At Hendricks’s violation hearing, Detective Jaggers testified as to what the victim, who identified herself as Nichola Hamilton-Stennatt, told him at the scene. There was no corroborating evidence to support the hearsay: Nichola Hamilton-Stennatt did not testify; Detective Jaggers did not ask the woman he spoke with for identification; and there was no testimony from a landlord or provision of a lease confirming that the apartment was rented by Nichola Hamilton-Stennatt.
Accordingly, we reverse the revocation of Hendricks’s community control and direct the trial court to reinstate Hendricks’s community control.
Reversed and Remanded.
GROSS, C.J. and CIKLIN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Turner v. State, 132 So. 3d 378 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…ourt’s finding was supported solely by hearsay evidence. Because hearsay alone is insufficient to establish a violation of a condition of probation, the trial court abused its discretion in revoking appel [*379] lant’s probation. Hendricks v. State, 59 So. 3d 368, 370 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); Ford v. State, 678 So. 2d 432, 432 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Clayton v. State, 422 So. 2d 83, 83 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). Appellant’s original probationary period began on July 21, 2010, and would have expired on July 21, 2012. For t…
Authorities Cited
- Morris v. State, 727 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Charvester Anthony v. State, 854 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Rico Correa v. State, 43 So. 3d 738 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- Mata v. State, 31 So. 3d 257 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Robertson v. State, 800 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)