LASHAWNA RANDALL, 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.
The court held that youthful offender sentencing restrictions apply to probation violations and that a 911 call can be admitted as an excited utterance to support a finding of violation.
Appellant was sentenced for a probation violation, which involved domestic battery. The trial court admitted a 911 call as substantive evidence prior …
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 Excited Utterance Exception To Hearsay Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant was sentenced to 101.6 months in prison for a violation of probation. In 2011, appellant had been sentenced as a youthful offender to a prison sentence followed by probation. The violation of probation charge in this case involved the allegation of a domestic battery.
As the state concedes, for the violation of probation, the court was required to sentence appellant under youthful offender restrictions. See § 958.14, Fla. Stat. (2013). Nothing in the statute provides that youthful offender status melts away upon a revocation of probation imposed as part of a youthful offender sentence. See Blacker v. State, 49 So.3d 785, 788 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).
On a separate issue, we affirm the determination that appellant violated her probation. The victim’s 911 call was admitted as substantive evidence prior to the victim’s testimony. The call falls under the excited utterance exception to the rule against hearsay. See § 90.803(2), Fla. Stat. (2013); Willis v. State, 727 So.2d 952, 953 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (holding that an excited utterance, admissible as substantive evidence, was sufficient to support a revocation of probation).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the circuit court for resen-tencing.
GERBER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Blacker v. State, 49 So. 3d 785 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)
- Emilia C. Gonzalez v. Roadhouse Grill, Inc., 727 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)
- Carlton Willis v. State, 727 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)