Boyd v. State
| Decision Date | 04 February 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D08-677.,2D08-677. |
| Citation | 1 So.3d 1186 |
| Parties | Maurio BOYD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Tanya M. Dugree, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Katherine Coombs Cline, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
Maurio Boyd seeks review of a judgment and sentence entered following the revocation of his probation based on a new law violation of battery on a pregnant woman. Boyd's probation was revoked after a revocation hearing, and he was sentenced to 16.2 months on the original offense of felonious possession of a firearm. Because the revocation is based on hearsay alone, we reverse.
Boyd was sentenced to twenty-four months' probation after pleading guilty to felonious possession of a firearm on December 11, 2006. On August 31, 2007, an affidavit of violation of probation was filed, alleging Boyd committed the new law violation of battery on a pregnant woman. A revocation hearing took place in which Boyd's probation officer testified regarding Boyd's arrest and the injury to the victim, Boyd's girlfriend. This testimony, based solely on facts contained in the police report, established that officers responded to a call at an apartment in Clearwater and heard a female voice from inside say The officers heard arguing, knocked on the door, and when Boyd opened the door, the officers saw the victim with "some blood protruding from a hand."
Boyd also testified, stating that he and his girlfriend were arguing in their apartment when the police arrived, that a broken knife was found on the floor, and that he knew his girlfriend was pregnant. However, he had no knowledge whether his girlfriend's hand was bleeding.
Boyd argues on appeal that the trial court erred in revoking his probation based on hearsay and noncorroborative nonhearsay evidence only. We review a revocation of probation under an abuse of discretion standard. Russell v. State, 982 So.2d 642, 646 (Fla.2008). It is well settled that hearsay is admissible in revocation of probation proceedings, but it cannot be the sole evidence used to find a violation. Id. Rather, the hearsay evidence must be supported by nonhearsay evidence, and the State must establish the violation by the greater weight of the evidence. Id.
Hearsay evidence in the form of a victim's statement, combined with nonhearsay evidence corroborating the statement, is often sufficient to support a violation of probation. See Russell, 982 So.2d at 646; M.S. v. State, 987 So.2d 774 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); Kalmbach v. State, 988 So.2d 1279 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). In Russell, the supreme court found that under the facts of that case, nonhearsay evidence, including testimony of an observation of victim injury, was sufficient to support the victim's hearsay statement alleging battery. 982 So.2d at 648. In that case, "[t]he court was able to compare both the oral and written hearsay accounts to the type of injury described by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baker v. Tucker
...hearsay evidence that would prove inadmissible at trial, so long as the State presents supporting non-hearsay evidence. Boyd v. State, 1 So. 3d 1186, 1187 (Fla. 2d 2009); Kalmbach v. State, 988 So.2d 1279 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) ("Hearsay evidence in the form of a victim's statement, combined w......
-
Reynolds v. State, Case No. 5D17-3820
...violated probation, it must be overturned and the case should be remanded for a second revocation hearing. See Boyd v. State , 1 So. 3d 1186, 1188 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (reversing violation of probation where only evidence of violation was in form of hearsay testimony and noting "that double j......
-
Cerny v. State
... ... We need not discuss Mr. Cerny's second argument because it is mooted by our disposition of his first argument.III. THE STANDARD OF REVIEW AND OTHER PRELIMINARY MATTERS Our review of an order of revocation of probation is for abuse of discretion. Boyd v. State, 1 So.3d 1186, 1187 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). However, before the circuit court can exercise its discretion to revoke probation, the State must establish a violation of probation by the greater weight of the evidence. Id. Here, the State allegedin pertinent partthat Mr. Cerny had committed the ... ...
-
Rodgers v. State
...non-hearsay evidence. See Russell, 982 So.2d at 646 ; McDoughall v. State, 133 So.3d 1097, 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) ; Boyd v. State, 1 So.3d 1186, 1187 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). However, “[c]orroboration of every aspect [of the violation alleged] should not be required in order to establish that ......
-
Judgment and sentence
...that only partially corroborates noncriminal aspects of the report, the evidence is insufficient to sustain a VOP finding. Boyd v. State, 1 So. 3d 1186 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) The court properly dismisses a VOP without a hearing when defendant is sentenced to prison in another case. The court ha......