C.B.H., 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.
A juvenile's probation was revoked based solely on hearsay testimony from a police officer regarding statements made by the juvenile's mother about a curfew violation. The court reversed, holding that while hearsay may assist in establishing a probation violation, a revocation cannot rest solely on hearsay evidence.
A probation revocation cannot be based solely upon hearsay testimony. Although hearsay is admissible to assist in establishing a probation violation, there must be some nonhearsay evidence to support the revocation. Here, the only evidence was the officer's hearsay account of the mother's statements.
[1] A revocation of probation cannot be based solely upon hearsay testimony.
[2] Hearsay testimony is admissible to assist in establishing a probation violation, but it cannot be the sole basis for revocation.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“a revocation of probation finding cannot be based solely upon hearsay testimony.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard that hearsay alone is insufficient 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 intelligenceC.B.H., a juvenile on probation with a curfew requirement, was the subject of a runaway report on February 23, 2012. Officer Schmidt responded to the …
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
C.B.H., a juvenile, challenges the revocation of his probation and his commitment to the Department of Juvenile Justice based thereon. We agree with C.B.H.’s contention that the revocation was based solely upon hearsay and, accordingly, we reverse.
During the violation of probation hearing, Officer Richard Schmidt testified that on February 23, 2012, he went to the home of C.B.H., who was in the care and custody of his mother, in response to a report for a runaway juvenile. The officer testified that he spoke with C.B.H.’s mother outside of the home and that she told him C.B.H. was not home, in violation of his curfew. The officer also testified that he did not search the house. C.B.H.’s mother did not testify at the hearing. The trial court found C.B.H. to be in violation of his probation for failing to adhere to his curfew, adjudicated him delinquent, and committed him to the Department of Juvenile Justice.
Though hearsay testimony is admissible to assist in establishing a probation violation, “ ‘a revocation of probation finding cannot be based solely upon hearsay testimony.’ ” Miffin v. State, 19 So.3d 377, 378 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (quoting Dean v. State, 948 So.2d 1042, 1044 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)). C.B.H. correctly asserts that the trial court revoked his probation based solely upon the hearsay testimony of the officer. See Grimsley v. State, 830 So.2d 118, 119 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (concluding that testimony of officer that an individual from probationer’s approved residence told her that probationer no longer lived there was hearsay and, without nonhearsay evidence, was insufficient to support probation revocation); Smith v. State, 690 So.2d 733, 734 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (concluding same); see also Kipp v. State, 657 So.2d 931, 932 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (concluding that testimony of officer that probationer did not report as required, which was based solely on her review of the probation office sign-in log not admitted into evidence, was hearsay and insufficient to support probation revocation).
On the record before us, we find that the only evidence offered to prove the violation was hearsay. We must, therefore, reverse *451the revocation of C.B.H.’s probation and his commitment.
Reversed.
WALLACE and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Savage v. State, 120 So. 3d 619 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…a.2006) (holding review of whether evidence is competent and substantial tests only its legal sufficiency and not its weight). The evidence must meet technical requirements to support a finding that a violation occurred. See, e.g., C.B.H. v. State, 117 So. 3d 450 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (reversing revocation where only evidence of violation was hearsay, which, without nonhearsay evidence, was insufficient); Cerny, 65 So. 3d at 613 (holding that “the circuit court erred in revoking Mr. Cerny’s probation based on t…
-
White v. State, 170 So. 3d 144 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…hearings for probation revocation, but a decision to revoke probation cannot be based entirely on hearsay. Smith-Curles v. State, 24 So. 3d 702, 702-03 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009); Stewart v. State, 926 So. 2d 413, 414 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); C.B.H. v. State, 117 So. 3d 450, 451 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (concluding that a probation officer’s testimony was insufficient to support probation revocation where the probation officer did not search the probationer’s home and instead relied on a statement by the probationer’s mother…
Authorities Cited
- Byfield v. Nat'l Westminister Bank PLC, 657 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Grimsley v. State, 830 So. 2d 118 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Dean v. State, 948 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- Sharif Shakhan Miffin v. State, 19 So. 3d 377 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- Smith v. State, 690 So. 2d 733 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)