TERESA LYNETTE TURNER, 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.
Teresa Lynette Turner appealed the revocation of her probation and sixty-day jail sentence. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the probation revocation because the only evidence of her violation—that she had left a residential treatment program—was unsupported hearsay, insufficient to meet the constitutional and statutory standards for proving a probation violation.
The court held that the evidence was insufficient because it consisted solely of hearsay. The order revoking probation could not stand when the only evidence supporting the violation finding was hearsay rather than competent, admissible evidence.
[1] A trial court's order revoking probation cannot stand if the sole evidence supporting the revocation is hearsay.
[2] A condition of probation requiring participation in a residential treatment program does not necessarily mandate the probationer's constant presence at the facility.
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“The only evidence to support the trial court's finding that appellant had absconded from the Life Drug Program was hearsay, the order revoking probation cannot stand.”
Establishes the core holding that hearsay evidence is insufficient to support 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 intelligenceTurner was on probation with a condition requiring her to participate in a residential treatment program at the Life Drug Therapeutic Residence. A cou…
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 Violation Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
McCORD, Judge.
This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of Duval County revoking appellant’s probation and sentencing her to a term of sixty (60) days in the Duval County Jail. The only question presented on appeal is whether or not the evidence on which the trial court based its order was sufficient. After hearing the evidence which consisted only of the testimony of one witness, Keith Coker, court liaison officer for the Life Drug Program, the trial court stated as follows:
“The Court finds that you have violated your probation, the condition of your probation that you reside at the Life Drug Program.”
The condition of the probation order referred to by the judge was condition (k) which states as follows:
“Shall participate in a residential treatment program at the Life Drug Thera-puetic Residence, or in such other program as is deemed necessary by the staff of the Life Drug Program.”
There was no evidence of any requirement that appellant remain at the Life Drug Therapuetic Residence at all times. The only evidence presented was the testimony of Coker that he went to the center on two occasions and did not see her there; that he had been told that she had left; that from his own personal knowledge he did not know whether she was there or not. At the close of the evidence, appellant moved that the rule be discharged for lack of sufficient evidence. The court denied the motion.
Since the only evidence to support the trial court’s finding that appellant had ab sconded from the Life Drug Program was hearsay, the order revoking probation cannot stand. See Hampton v. State, Fla.App., 276 So. 2d 497 and Franklin v. State, Fla.App., 226 So. 2d 461.
The order revoking probation is reversed and the judgment and sentence is set aside with directions to return appellant to probation under the terms and conditions originally established, unless she had now completed serving the sixty day sentence. The action of this court is without prejudice to a further affidavit and further proceedings upon the violation upon which hearing was had.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
BOYER, Acting C. J., and DREW, E. HARRIS (Retired), Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
White v. State, 301 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)…testimony of another officer as to what Officer Cook had told him. It appearing that the only evidence supportive of the trial judge’s finding that appellant had violated his probation was hearsay, we here, as in Turner v. State, Fla.App.lst 1974, 293 So. 2d 771, reverse without prejudice to future proceedings consistent with the views expressed herein. RAWLS, C. J., and McCORD, J., concur.…
-
Bass v. State, 473 So. 2d 1367 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…mission of hearsay evidence in revocation proceedings is not error. Cuciak v. State, 410 So. 2d 916, 918 (Fla.1982). Bass is correct in arguing that a probation revocation may not be premised solely on the basis of hearsay evidence. Turner v. State, 293 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). However, the evidence supporting the violation of the employment condition was a combination of non-hearsay admissions and personal observations, as well as hearsay similar to the situation in Miller v. State, 444 So. 2d 523 (Fl…
-
Miller v. State, 444 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…. 2d 916, 918 (Fla.1982); Purvis v. State, 420 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Couch v. State, 341 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1977). It is equally clear, however, that a probation violation charge cannot be sustained by hearsay alone. Turner v. State, 293 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Clemons v. State, 388 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1980); Combs v. State, 351 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). With respect to the two criminal charges for which the State sought revocation of Miller’s probation, the only evidence…
Previewing 3 of 4 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)
- Hampton v. State, 276 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)