JOHN EUGENE WRIGHT, 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.
Wright's probation was revoked based solely on hearsay testimony from his probation supervisor who recounted what a Serenity House manager told him about Wright leaving the program. The appellate court reversed the revocation, holding that probation revocation cannot be based entirely on hearsay evidence.
Probation cannot be revoked based solely on hearsay evidence. The revocation order is reversed because the only evidence supporting it consisted of hearsay statements from the probation supervisor about what the Serenity House manager told him.
[1] Revocation of probation cannot be based solely on hearsay evidence.
[2] Hearsay statements from a probation supervisor regarding a third party's report are insufficient to support a probation revocation order.
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“It is well settled that revocation of probation cannot be based solely on hearsay.”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that hearsay is insufficient for probation revocation
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWright pleaded guilty to felonious possession of cannabis and was placed on probation for five years in November 1976, with a special condition requir…
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
PER CURIAM.
We set aside herein an order revoking appellant’s probation.
Appellant pleaded guilty to a charge of felonious possession of cannabis and was placed on probation for five years by an order entered November 17, 1976. A special condition of the probation was that appellant enroll in the Serenity House Program, a drug rehabilitation program.
On December 3, 1976, appellant’s probation supervisor filed an affidavit of violation of probation which charged appellant with:
“Violation of Condition 1 which states that you will not change your residence without first procuring the consent of your probation supervisor, in that:
On 11/28/76, the subject did leave his residence at Serenity House as told this affiant by house manager Ernie Gert-ner. Violation of Special Condition 9 which states that the defendant will enroll in the Serenity House Drug Rehabilitation Program, in that:
Subject voluntarily left the program on 11/28/76, as told this affiant by Ernie Gertner — house manager of Serenity House.” (Emphasis supplied.)
A warrant was issued for the arrest of appellant for the aforesaid violations of the conditions of probation, and appellant was subsequently arrested. At the revocation hearing held January 3, 1977, the sole witness against appellant was his probation supervisor whose testimony consisted merely of a reiteration of the information set forth in his affidavit as quoted above, e. g., the house manager of Serenity House, Ernie Gertner, told the witness that appellant left his residence at Serenity House and the program on November 28, 1976.
Thereupon, the trial court revoked appellant’s probation1 and sentenced him to five years imprisonment. This was error. It is well settled that revocation of probation cannot be based solely on hearsay. Brown v. State, 338 So. 2d 573 (Fla.2d DCA 1976); White v. State, 301 So. 2d 464 (Fla.3d DCA 1974). Here, the only evidence to support the order of revocation of probation was the hearsay statements of the probation supervisor and, as such, is insufficient. In view whereof, the order appealed from and the judgment and sentence entered thereon should be, and they are hereby, reversed.
HOBSON, Acting C. J., and McNULTY and SCHEB, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jillette Jones v. State, 423 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…ation was police officer’s testimony regarding what a co-defendant had said]; Jones v. State, 348 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) [Only evidence of violation was supervisor’s statement that he had been informed of appellant’s arrest]; Wright v. State, 348 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977) [Only evidence of violation of probation was supervi [*514] sor’s statement regarding what someone had told him]; Tuff v. State, 338 So. 2d 1335 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) [Only evidence in violation of probation was contained in an unide…
-
Thompson v. State, 626 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…ocation hearing, held in connection with that affidavit, was hearsay. Probation cannot be revoked solely on the basis of hearsay. Brown v. State, 537 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Adams v. State, 521 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Wright v. State, 348 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). Thus, the order revoking probation and the sentence imposed in connection therewith are reversed. The appellant also contests the validity of the modification of his probation that took place on November 25, 1992. That modifica…
Authorities Cited
- White v. State, 301 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Brown v. State, 338 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)