Arndt v. State, 5D01-2373.
| Decision Date | 28 March 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 5D01-2373.,5D01-2373. |
| Parties | Conrad P. ARNDT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Kevin R. Holtz, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Tammy L. Jaques, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
In this belated appeal Conrad Arndt challenges the trial court's revocation of his probation.1 We affirm.
Arndt was sentenced to a two year probation term after having pled guilty to a drug charge. One week into his probation, the State filed a petition charging Arndt with violating his probation by committing the new substantive offense of battery. At the violation of probation hearing, Richard Silva, an Osceola County Sheriffs Deputy, testified that he was the officer directed to respond to a report of criminal activity. Upon arriving at the scene, Silva encountered the victim. The victim told Silva she had argued with Arndt, and reported that Arndt had slapped her across her face. Silva testified that he observed redness on the side of the victim's face and her ear. According to Silva, when he approached Arndt, Arndt refused to speak with him and was visibly upset. Based on this testimony, the trial court adjudicated Arndt guilty of violating his probation.
Arndt contends that the trial court erred when it revoked his probation based on Deputy Silva's hearsay testimony and "scant other evidence".2 We disagree and conclude that, in revoking Arndt's probation, the trial court properly relied on Young v. State, 742 So.2d 418 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), rev. denied, 751 So.2d 1255 (Fla.2000).
In Young, the defendant contended that the trial court improperly adjudicated him guilty of violating his probation based solely upon hearsay evidence submitted by an investigating police officer. This court affirmed the revocation of probation explaining that the officer's testimony contained both hearsay and direct evidence of guilt:
[T]he hearsay testimony was supported by the officer's description of the distraught appearance of the victim when the officer responded to a 911 call; the officer described the physical appearance of the victim's wounds to her arm and mouth; and photographs of the victim's wounds were introduced into evidence.
As in Young, here the State submitted direct evidence which corroborated the hearsay evidence including Silva's eyewitness testimony concerning the physical appearance of the victim. Although hearsay evidence alone is insufficient to support a revocation of probation, here Silva's hearsay testimony was coupled with his eyewitness testimony concerning the victim's reddened face and ear and a description of Arndt's appearance. The lack of a photograph of the victim's reddened face and ear does not render the evidence insufficient.
Contrary to Arndt's contention, the case of Bales v. State, 793 So.2d 87 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) does not dictate a different result. Although a witness in that case testified to seeing redness on the elbow of the victim, the trial court did not utilize that evidence in reaching the conclusion that the evidence of a probation violation was insufficient. As the Second District noted:
AFFIRMED.
During the violation of probation hearing, the deputy testified that he did not know if the victim and Arndt fought, or if the victim had struck Arndt. Furthermore, he testified that Arndt was visibly upset when the deputy tried to talk with him. Realizing that this court must review the lower court's probation revocation decision for abuse of discretion, see Steiner v. State, 604 So.2d 1265, 1267 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992),
I disagree with the reasoning in the opinion.
The opinion of this court relies upon Young v. State, 742 So.2d 418 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) for the proposition that hearsay together with direct evidence—the deputy's testimony about his observations of the victim—are sufficient to support a probation revocation. In Young, this court relied on Morris v. State, 727 So.2d 975 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), characterizing it as "on point and ... dispositive." Id. In Morris, police officers testified that the victim and her daughter had said that the defendant twisted the victim's arm. Morris, 727 So.2d at 976. The police officers also testified that they observed:
broken glass and shelves on the floor of the trailer, evidencing the struggle; the victim curled up on a chair with a bruise on one arm and what appeared to be a bite mark on the other; and both the victim and the daughter crying and apparently terrified. [The defendant] was belligerent and hostile towards the deputies and wrestled with them, which resulted in his being shackled. He also tried to break out the windows of the patrol car while being taken to the police station.
Young and Morris are distinguished from the instant case because in both cases, there was independent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nelson v. Florida Parole Comm'n
...hearsay testimony was not corroborated (id. at 5-8 (citing Merritt v. Crosby, 893 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) and Arndt v. State, 815 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000))). 1. Record of Parole Revocation Proceedings The hearing examiner's written summary of the evidence adduced at the final p......
-
Russell v. State
...Blair v. State, 805 So.2d 873 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), but it held that its decision was controlled by its prior ruling in Arndt v. State, 815 So.2d 674 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), where it found the hearsay statement of the victim coupled with the officer's observation of injury sufficient to prove a ......
-
Russell v. State, 5D05-2630.
...... Although not cited by either party, our resolution of this issue is controlled by our decision in Arndt v. State, 815 So.2d 674 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002), wherein we concluded that the hearsay statements of the battery victim, coupled with the officer's ......
-
Laing v. State
...no proof that Laing falsified his driving logs. A probation revocation cannot be based solely on hearsay. See, e.g., Arndt v. State, 815 So.2d 674, 675 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (holding that hearsay alone was insufficient to support a revocation of probation).Accordingly, we reverse Laing's conv......