DEAN WILLIAM GRANNEMANN, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed probation revocation because hearsay evidence of drug treatment program discharge was insufficient and the state failed to prove the probationer was responsible for the discharge, requiring remand to consider whether the failure to report violation alone warranted revocation.
Probation revocation based on hearsay evidence of unsuccessful discharge from drug treatment without proof the probationer was responsible for the discharge is insufficient, and remand is required to determine if the failure-to-report violation alone justifies revocation.
[1] Hearsay evidence that a probationer was discharged from a drug treatment program is insufficient to support probation revocation without evidence that the probationer was…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“When a defendant's probation is sought to be revoked because of his failure to successfully complete a designated rehabilitation program, some evidence must be submitted to show that the defendant was in some manner responsible for such failure.”
Court explaining the evidentiary requirement when probation revocation is based on failure to complete a rehabilitation program.
Grannemann's probation was revoked based on his failure to complete a drug treatment program and failure to report to his probation officer. The only …
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 Evidentiary Sufficiency cases and more on FLexlaw
Dean William Grannemann’s probation was revoked based on his failure to complete a drug treatment program and his failure to report to his probation officer as instructed. However, the only evidence supporting his failure to complete drug treatment was hearsay testimony indieat-*1187ing that his probation officer had been told by the treating facility that he had been unsuccessfully discharged from its program. Such evidence is insufficient in itself to support a finding of a violation of probation. See Davis v. State, 831 So.2d 792, 793 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Further, the State failed to offer any evidence that Grannemann was “in some manner responsible” for his discharge from drug treatment. See Rubio v. State, 824 So.2d 1020, 1022 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (“When a defendant’s probation is sought to be revoked because of his failure to successfully complete a designated rehabilitation program, some evidence must be submitted to show that the defendant was in some manner responsible for such failure.” (quoting Curry v. State, 379 So.2d 140, 141 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980))). Because it is unclear from the record whether the trial judge would have revoked probation and imposed the same sentence based on Grannemann’s failure to report to his probation officer, it is necessary to reverse and remand to allow the court to consider whether that violation alone warrants revocation. See Orr v. State, 453 So.2d 222, 223 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
SAWAYA and PALMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Niemi v. State, 284 So. 3d 1143 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)…(remanding based on reversal of some violations of probation but not others, noting that record was unclear whether trial court would have revoked probation and imposed same sentence based on remaining violations only); see also Grannemann v. State, 85 So. 3d 1186, 1187 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED. COHEN, WALLIS and HARRIS, JJ., concur. 4…
-
Isaiah JOE Bean v. State, 388 So. 3d 300 (Fla. 6th DCA 2024)…ider whether probation should be revoked and, if so, whether the same sentence should be imposed. Niemi v. State, 284 So. 3d 1143, 1145-46 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) (citing Hostetter v. State, 82 So. 3d 1217, 1221 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Grannemann v. State, 85 So. 3d 1186, 1187 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)); Faulstick v. State, 333 So. 3d 797, 801 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022). On this record, we cannot determine whether the trial court would have revoked probation and imposed the same new sentence on Bean based only on his failures t…
-
Warner v. State, 157 So. 3d 548 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…009) (quoting Soto v. State, 727 So. 2d 1044, 1046 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)). The probation officer’s testimony, the only evidence adduced to prove failure to complete the required psycho-sexual treatment was, moreover, hearsay. See Grannemann v. State, 85 So. 3d 1186, 1186-87 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (“[T]he only evidence supporting his failure to complete drug treatment was hearsay testimony indicating that his probation officer had been told by the treating facility that he had been unsuccessfully discharged from i…
Authorities Cited
- Rubio v. State, 824 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Curry v. State, 379 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Robbins v. Blackstone Valley Nat'l Bank, 379 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Davis v. State, 831 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- ORR v. State, 453 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)