ISAAC WILLIAMS, 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.
Isaac Williams appealed the revocation of his probation based on two alleged violations. The appellate court reversed, finding the state failed to present sufficient evidence that Williams knowingly violated either probation condition—possession of controlled substances or association with persons engaged in criminal activity.
The court reversed the probation revocation order because the state failed to present sufficient evidence for either violation. To establish a violation based on association with criminals, the state must prove the probationer was aware those he was associating with were engaged in criminal activity, and no such evidence was presented here.
[1] A probationer's violation of a condition prohibiting association with persons engaged in criminal activity requires proof that the probationer was aware of the other pers…
[2] A probationer's violation of a condition prohibiting unlawful possession of contraband requires proof of actual or constructive possession or awareness of the contraband'…
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“To establish a violation of probation, the prosecution must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a probationer willfully violated a substantial condition of probation.”
Establishes the standard for proving probation violations
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams was a passenger in a vehicle that was stopped by police. During the stop, officers found firearms, drugs, and drug paraphernalia concealed in…
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 Actual Possession cases and more on FLexlaw
Isaac Williams appeals the order revoking his probation and the sentence he received after the trial court found that he had violated two .terms of his probation. Because the state did not put on sufficient evidence to prove a violation of either condition cited as a basis for revocation, we *1258reverse and remand with directions to reinstate the initial probation order.
The state concedes there is insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that Mr. Williams violated condition (5) of his probation, i.e., “failing to live and remain at liberty without violating any law,” by possession of cocaine, possession of a controlled substance without a prescription, and possession of narcotic equipment. The state presented no evidence that Mr. Williams was in actual or constructive possession of contraband or, indeed, that he was aware that contraband was present in the vehicle in which he was a passenger. See Player v. State, 949 So.2d 306, 306-07 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).
The state argues, however, that there is sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that he violated condition (6) of his probation, forbidding “associating with persons engaged in criminal activity.” But the state also failed to present any evidence that Mr. Williams knew he was associating with someone engaged in criminal activity. The policeman who stopped the vehicle testified that Mr. Williams entered the vehicle only a minute and a half before he pulled the car over, and that the firearms and other contraband the officer found concealed in the vehicle would not have been visible to Mr. Williams during this brief period. There was, in short, no competent evidence that Mr. Williams was aware of the drugs, drug paraphernalia, or concealed weapons a search of the vehicle turned up.
Although limited use can be made of hearsay in probation revocation proceedings, see, e.g., Carter v. State, 82 So.3d 993, 994-95 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (stating “[hjearsay is admissible at a probation revocation hearing to supplement or explain other, competent evidence, but hearsay alone will not support revocation”), no hearsay evidence, either, was adduced at the revocation hearing that Mr. Williams was aware, prior to the traffic stop, that the driver was engaged, or had previously been engaged, in criminal activity. Nobody aside from appellant and the driver was in the car.
“ ‘To establish a violation of probation, the prosecution must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a probationer willfully violated a substantial condition of probation.’ ” Warner v. State, 157 So.3d 548, 549 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (citation omitted). “This means that where the State seeks to establish a violation based upon a defendant’s associating with persons engaged in criminal activity, there must be evidence that the defendant was aware those he was associating with were engaged in criminal activity.” Knite v. State, 102 So.3d 691, 693-94 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).
Reversed and remanded with directions.
BENTON, CLARK, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rodgers v. State, 171 So. 3d 236 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…etermination that the firearm possession and new offense probation violations were proven by the greater weight of the evidence, which it is. See Russell, 982 So. 2d at 646 (citing State v. Carter, 835 So. 2d 259, 261 (Fla.2002)); Williams v. State, 163 So. 3d 1257, 1258 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (stating the prosecution must prove willful probation violation by a preponderance of the evidence); Webb v. State, 154 So. 3d 1186, 1188 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (stating that, to establish probationer committed the alleged off…
-
Orta v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
Authorities Cited
- Carter v. State, 82 So. 3d 993 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Knite v. State, 102 So. 3d 691 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
- Player v. State, 949 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- Warner v. State, 157 So. 3d 548 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)