Crume v. State, 97-0671
| Decision Date | 31 December 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-0671,97-0671 |
| Citation | 703 So.2d 1216 |
| Parties | 23 Fla. L. Weekly D163 Kesanic CRUME, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Rosemarie Farrell, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kelli R. Orndorff, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
Kesanic Crume (defendant) appeals the trial court's order finding that he willfully violated the terms of his probation by failing to report to his probation officer upon his release from the Orange County Jail. We reverse because there is no competent record evidence establishing that the defendant was instructed to so report.
After entering no contest pleas to charges of violating his probation, the defendant was sentenced to a term of 51 months in the Orange County Jail. Upon completion of this jail sentence, the defendant resumed his residence in Orange County. Twenty-one days after he was released from custody, a warrant was issued for the defendant's arrest alleging that he had violated his probation by failing to report to his probation officer as instructed.
At the violation of probation hearing, the defendant testified that he was never advised in person or in writing to report to the probation office upon his release. The only evidence presented by the state in this regard was the testimony of a supervisor from the probation office. The supervisor stated, "According to our records, he was supposed to be released and report to us after his release from the Orange County Jail, which he failed to do." The supervisor did not state who prepared the record. When specifically asked whether the defendant had been instructed to report to the probation office upon his release, the supervisor responded, "[T]here was no, there was nothing in the file to say that...." Additionally, our independent review of the written probation order reveals that the order does not include an instruction that the defendant report to the probation office upon his release from jail.
Before a trial court can revoke a defendant's probation, the state must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant willfully violated a substantial condition of his probation. Van Wagner v. State, 677 So.2d 314, 316 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Kolovrat v. State, 574 So.2d 294, 297 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). Although hearsay evidence is admissible in violation of probation hearings, a violation cannot be sustained solely on hearsay evidence. Andrews v. State, 693 So.2d 1138, 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).
In the instant case, the only evidence submitted by the state...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morris v. State, 97-3356.
...in violation of probation hearings, but a violation cannot be sustained solely on the basis of hearsay evidence. Crume v. State, 703 So.2d 1216 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Jones v. State, 423 So.2d 513 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). The statements referenced above were hearsay, but the substance of the stat......
-
Rothery v. State, 5D99-2273.
...Strunk v. State, 728 So.2d 320, 321 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Fields v. State, 737 So.2d 1156 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Crume v. State, 703 So.2d 1216, 1217 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Prior to violating a condition of probation, a defendant must have notice of the condition. All defendants are on constructi......
-
Carter v. State
...cannot be sustained solely on hearsay evidence.’ Andrews v. State, 693 So.2d 1138, 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).” Crume v. State, 703 So.2d 1216, 1217 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). At the end of the hearing in the present case, the trial judge found that the state had presented sufficient non-hearsay ev......
-
Theard v. State of Florida, 3D03-752.
...3d DCA 1984). We find no merit in the other points presented. See Franklin v. State, 825 So.2d 487 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Crume v. State, 703 So.2d 1216 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). ...