ELLA RANDOLPH, 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 court held that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the revocation of probation, and hearsay and officer testimony were admissible in the revocation hearing.
The defendant, Ella Randolph, appealed the trial court's order revoking her probation and sentencing her to prison. The appeal centered on the suffici…
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 Probation Revocation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant-appellant, Ella Randolph, seeks review of the trial court’s order of revocation of probation and sentence to two years in the state penitentiary.
Appellant first contends that the trial court erred in finding that the evidence of her possession of marijuana was sufficient to revoke the defendant’s probation. We disagree.
A revocation of probation hearing is informal and does not take the course of a regular trial, nor does the evidence have the same objective as that taken at a regular trial. Its purpose is to satisfy the conscience of the court as to whether the conditions of the suspended sentence have been violated and to give the accused an opportunity to be heard. Brill v. State, 159 Fla. 682, 32 So. 2d 607 (1947). A search of the record reveals that there was sufficient evidence contained therein to support the belief of the trial judge that the probationer had violated the terms of his probation. Cf. McNeely v. State, Fla. App.1966, 186 So. 2d 520; Singletary v. State, Fla.App.1974, 290 So. 2d 116.
Defendant also argues that the trial judge erred in (1) admitting hearsay testimony concerning the chemical analysis of the property seized, and (2) allowing the police officer to testify as to the sale of marijuana which allegedly occurred between the defendant and the confidential informant.
This report and testimony would have been inadmissable at a trial but properly were considered in the instant cause by the trial judge. See Bernhardt v. State, Fla. 1974, 288 So. 2d 490; State ex rel. Ard v. Shelby, Fla.App.1957, 97 So. 2d 631; Singletary, supra. Thus, these contentions of appellant must fail.
We also considered appellant’s remaining point on appeal and found that to be without merit.
Accordingly, the order revoking probation is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (29 total)
-
Bernhine W. Young v. State, 519 So. 2d 719 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…judicially note Young’s probationary status. See § 90.202, Fla.Stat. (1985). The lab reports were admissible at a probation revocation hearing without a chemist’s testimony. See Hayes v. State, 345 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Randolph v. State, 292 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 300 So. 2d 901 (Fla. 1974); Singletary v. State, 290 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. dismissed, 293 So. 2d 361 (Fla.1974). Moreover, there was also testimony of a positive field-test of the cocaine and of Young’s repres…1 / 2
-
Tuthill v. State, 518 So. 2d 1300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…rely a matter of judicial grace (for which Tuthill successfully pleaded at his first sentencing), Bernhardt v. State, 288 So. 2d 490 (Fla.1974), requires proof of a violation sufficient only to satisfy the conscience of the court. Randolph v. State, 292 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 300 So. 2d 901 (Fla.1974); see Lee v. State, 440 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). I cannot agree that every probation violation hearing4 should be rendered meaningless in determining the propriety of a departure and w…
-
Kord v. State, 361 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…ient to sustain the trial court’s conclusion that Kord materially violated the terms of his probation; and to show that the trial court acted within the bounds of its discretion. Bernhardt v. State, 288 So. 2d 490, 501 (Fla.1974); Randolph v. State, 292 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Marshall v. State, 294 So. 2d 713, 714 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Adams v. State, 330 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). The second point is that the trial court erred in sentencing Kord to five years where it previously modified the cond…
Previewing 3 of 29 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gideon Bernhardt v. State, 288 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1974)
- Brill v. State, 159 Fla. 682 (Fla. 1947)
- McNEELY v. State, 186 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Singletary v. State, 290 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Gonzalez v. State, 159 Fla. 681 (Fla. 1947)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Fritz ARD v. Emmett Shelby, 97 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 1st DCA 1957)