CHARLES WADE HAMPTON, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 appellant was placed on probation after conviction for attempted robbery with adjudication withheld. He was charged with violating probation by changing residence and employment without consent. The trial court revoked probation and sentenced him to five years in prison based solely on hearsay testimony. The appellate court reversed, holding that probation cannot be revoked when the only evidence supporting the violation is hearsay.
A judgment revoking probation cannot be entered when the only evidence supporting the violation is hearsay testimony, even though probation revocation proceedings may be informal in nature and may ordinarily admit hearsay evidence.
[1] A judgment revoking probation may not be entered when the only evidence supporting the violation is hearsay testimony.
[2] Probation revocation proceedings may be informal and are not rendered erroneous by the admission of hearsay testimony, provided other competent evidence exists.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“although proceedings upon the revocation of probation may be informal in nature and are not rendered erroneous by the admission of hearsay testimony, yet a judgment revoking probation may not be entered when there is no other evidence except hearsay testimony”
Establishes the legal standard that probation revocation requires evidence beyond hearsay despite the informal nature of such proceedings
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCharles Wade Hampton was found guilty of attempted robbery with adjudication of guilt withheld and placed on probation for seven years. A probation vi…
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 Sufficiency Of Evidence For Probation Revocation cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant was found guilty of attempted robbery; however, adjudication of guilt was withheld, and an order withholding entry of sentence and placing him on probation for seven years was entered. Thereafter, an affidavit of violation of probation was filed by his probation supervisor. The violation alleged was as follows :
“By changing approved residence and employment without consent, in that he did move from approved residence and did leave approved employment site on or about June 2, 1972. As sworn to Affidavit by Harry M. Ivey Jr. Probation Officer and signed by Criminal Court Tudge Warren A. Nelson of Duval County.”
An adjudication of insolvency and appointment of public defender to represent appellant’s interests was entered. Thereafter, a hearing was held before the court on the alleged probation violation. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court entered its judgment revoking probation and sentencing the appellant to five years in the state penitentiary. This appeal is from that judgment.
It affirmatively appears from the record of the hearing that the only evidence in support of the charged violation of probation was hearsay testimony. The courts of this state have uniformly held that although proceedings upon the revocation of probation may be informal in nature and are not rendered erroneous by the admission of hearsay testimony, yet a judgment revoking probation may not be *498entered when there is no other evidence except hearsay testimony. Franklin v. State, Fla.App.1969, 226 So.2d 461.
Therefore, the order revoking probation is reversed, and the judgment and sentence is set aside with directions to return the appellant to probation under the terms and conditions originally established.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
ON REHEARING GRANTED
The appellee, State of Florida, having filed its petition for rehearing in which it expresses concern that this court’s opinion and decision filed on this appeal may be interpreted as barring further proceedings upon the violation of probation concerned, thereupon the petition for rehearing is granted and the opinion and decision of this court is amended by adding the following sentence at the end of the next to the last paragraph thereof: “The action of this court is without prejudice to a further affidavit and further proceedings upon the violation upon which hearing was had”.
It is so ordered.
The appellee, State of Florida, having filed its petition for rehearing in which it expresses concern that this court’s opinion and decision filed on this appeal may be interpreted as barring further proceedings upon the violation of probation concerned, thereupon the petition for rehearing is granted and the opinion and decision of this court is amended by adding the following sentence at the end of the next to the last paragraph thereof: “The action of this court is without prejudice to a further affidavit and further proceedings upon the violation upon which hearing was had”.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Singletary v. State, 290 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)…nted it was heroin and marijuana at the time of the sale. The evidence before the trial judge justified revocation. The revocation was not based solely upon hearsay evidence as in Franklin v. State, 226 So. 2d 461 (2 DCA Fla.1969); Hampton v. State, 276 So. 2d 497 (3 DCA Fla. 1973), and Mato v. State, 278 So. 2d 672 (3 DCA Fla. 1973). If, at final hearing, the court is satisfied, from the probationer’s admissions, or from the adjudication of facts against the probationer in other cases, or from the greater w…
-
Tuff v. State, 338 So. 2d 1335 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)…lely on hearsay, does not bar a second revocation hearing based on the filing of another affidavit alleging the same violation, Robbins v. State, 318 So. 2d 472 (Fla.4th DCA 1975); White v. State, 301 So. 2d 464 (Fla.1st DCA 1974); Hampton v. State, 276 So. 2d 497 (Fla.3d DCA 1973), this proceeding may include a second hearing on revocation based upon violation of Condition (H). Should the state elect not to file a new affidavit, then the trial judge must determine whether probation should be revoked on the b…
-
Brown v. State, 305 So. 2d 309 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)…written consent to search defendant’s car. The officer did so and found two watches hidden therein, identified as the burglary loot. The watches were admitted into evidence. See White v. State, 301 So. 2d 464 (1st D.C.A.Fla.1974); Hampton v. State, 276 So. 2d 497 (3d D.C.A.Fla.1973); Crossin v. State, 244 So. 2d 142 (4th D.C.A.Fla.1971); Franklin v. State, 226 So. 2d 461 (2d D.C.A.Fla.1969); McNeely v. State, 186 So. 2d 520 (2d D.C.A.Fla.1966). We find no reversible error. Affirmed. OWEN, C. J, and MAGER,…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Franklin v. State, 226 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)