CORNELIUS GABRIEL CRAWFORD A/K/A CEE DEVINE, 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.
Crawford appeals his community control revocation and five-year prison sentence. The appellate court affirms the revocation based on violations of two conditions but reverses one violation finding as unsupported by hearsay evidence alone, remanding for a corrected revocation order.
Hearsay testimony standing alone is legally insufficient to support revocation for changing residence. However, the revocation is affirmed based on the other two violations (failing to remain confined to residence and committing new law violations), which were supported by evidence and were willful and substantial.
[1] Hearsay testimony, standing alone, is legally insufficient to support the revocation of community control.
[2] A trial court may affirm the revocation of community control based on remaining willful and substantial violations even if one alleged violation is unsupported by evidenc…
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“This hearsay testimony, standing alone, is legally insufficient to support the revocation of Crawford's community control.”
Establishes the court's holding that community control officer hearsay about third-party statements cannot alone support revocation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCrawford was serving community control for cocaine possession. The State alleged he violated three conditions: changing residence without permission, …
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 Willful And Substantial Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
VILLANTI, Judge.
Cornelius Crawford appeals from the revocation of his community control and the resulting sentence of five years in prison. We affirm the revocation of Crawford’s community control and his sentence, but we remand for entry of a corrected order of revocation.
Crawford was serving a term of community control on a conviction for possession of cocaine. The State filed an affidavit of violation of community control alleging that Crawford had violated his community control by changing his residence without permission (condition 3), failing to remain confined to his approved residence (condition 13), and committing new law violations (condition 5). After considering the evidence presented at the revocation hearing, the trial court revoked Crawford’s community control, finding that he had violated all three conditions. The trial court sentenced Crawford to five years in prison.
Our review of the record shows that the only evidence presented by the State to establish that Crawford had violated condition 3 was his community control officer’s hearsay testimony that Crawford’s sister told him that Crawford was no longer living with her at his approved residence. This hearsay testimony, standing alone, is legally insufficient to support the revocation of Crawford’s community control. See Milbry v. State, 722 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (reversing revocation of probation based solely on probation officer’s hearsay testimony that Milbry’s sister told him that Milbry was no longer living with her in his approved residence).
Accordingly, the trial court’s finding that Crawford violated condition 3 of his community control cannot stand. However, we find no error in the trial court’s finding that Crawford violated conditions 5 and 13 of his community control and that these violations were both willful and substantial.
Accordingly, we affirm the revocation of Crawford’s community control based on these two violations. See Butler v. State, 932 So. 2d 306, 307 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (affirming the revocation of Butler’s probation despite finding one ground for revocation unsupported by the evidence because the remaining violations were substantial); Mitchell v. State, 871 So. 2d 1040, 1042 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (same).
However, we remand this case for entry of a corrected order of revocation that omits any reference to a violation of condition 3.
Affirmed but remanded for entry of a corrected order of revocation.
STRINGER and CANADY, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gary v. State, 987 So. 2d 180 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…t find Gary at home when she visited did not prove that Gary had moved. The State’s only other evidence was the hearsay statement attributed to Gary’s daughter. This, standing alone, was insufficient to support the revocation. See Crawford v. State, 982 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (stating that hearsay testimony from probationer’s sister that he was no longer living with her at his approved residence was legally insufficient to support a revocation). Moreover, the State had the opportunity to present testim…
-
E.J. v. State, 29 So. 3d 348 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…Dade Marine Institute. E.J.’s probation officer additionally testified that ac [*351] cording to E.J.’s mother, E.J. violated his curfew on four occasions. Because E.J.’s remaining violations were not based solely on hearsay, see Crawford v. State, 982 So. 2d 1, 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (reversing the trial court’s order finding the defendant in violation of his probation based solely on hearsay testimony), and these violations were proven by a preponderance of the evidence, we affirm the findings by the trial…
-
Robinson v. State, 23 So. 3d 1261 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…son’s probation but remand with instructions to strike the findings that the defendant violated his probation by committing perjury in an unofficial proceeding and by failing to pay the costs of his suspension and court costs. See Crawford v. State, 982 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Rojas v. State, 484 So. 2d 629, 680 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Affirmed, but remanded with, instructions to enter a corrected order.…
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
- Mitchell v. State, 871 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Gallagher Bassett & Valencia Cmty. Coll. v. Laber, 722 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)
- Butler v. State, 932 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)