Edwards v. State , 2D09–2399.
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
| Writing for the Court | NORTHCUTT, Judge. |
| Citation | 60 So.3d 529 |
| Parties | Clarence EDWARDS, Appellant,v.STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Docket Number | No. 2D09–2399.,2D09–2399. |
| Decision Date | 29 April 2011 |
60 So.3d 529
Clarence EDWARDS, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 2D09–2399.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
April 29, 2011.
[60 So.3d 530]
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and John C. Fisher, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Susan M. Shanahan, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.NORTHCUTT, Judge.
Clarence Edwards was imprisoned for crimes of lewd molestation and, after finishing his sentence, began serving ten years on probation. In this case he has appealed the revocation of his probation for failing to follow the instructions of his probation officer and failing to abide by the terms of his electronic monitoring. We agree with Edwards's assertion that the evidence was insufficient to prove the violations, and we reverse the probation revocation.
The terms of Edwards's probation were modified several times. The final modification before this revocation required, among other things, that he comply with a “curfew 10pm–6am or as otherwise directed” by his probation officer. He was also required to “[w]ear a GPSA monitor with monthly fee.” The affidavit of violation asserted that Edwards failed to follow the instructions of his probation officer and violated a condition of his probation by failing to remain near his personal tracking device, thereby causing multiple “bracelet gone” alerts between May 16, 2008, and June 8, 2008. The probation officer who signed the affidavit averred that she had learned of these alerts from Pro Tech Monitoring.
No representative of Pro Tech Monitoring testified at the revocation hearing. The records of the company were introduced at the hearing through a correction probation specialist, but they were clearly hearsay—the evidence showed they were compiled and maintained by Pro Tech. The probation specialist, an electronic monitoring coordinator, testified that she printed out the reports from Pro Tech and determined whether a situation required an officer's attention. Edwards's report showed numerous “bracelet gone” alerts. Most of the alerts were less than three or four minutes' duration, and most occurred between 10 p.m. and 4 a.m. Three of the alerts happened during late afternoon, around 4 p.m., and lasted from thirty minutes to an hour. Pro Tech's report reflected that a company representative had contacted Edwards during one of these longer alerts and he reported that he was outside working in his yard.
[60 So.3d 531]
Edwards's probation officer also testified about the “bracelet gone” violations. She stated that she learned of the alerts from Pro Tech's report, which had been reviewed by the electronic monitoring...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nieminski v. State , 2D10–1087.
...they were not welcome to enter through the unlocked gate in order to approach the front door to deliver something or to make contact with [60 So.3d 529] the occupants of the home. It is quite apparent from the deputies' testimony that they did not perceive that it might be a trespass for th......
-
R.L.G. v. State, 3D21-675
...was based was "clearly hearsay" and the State failed to establish the data came within the business records exception); Edwards v. State, 60 So. 3d 529, 530–31 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (holding third-party GPS data was "clearly hearsay," and reversing a revocation of probation 322 So.3d 725 based......
-
R.L.G. v. State, 3D21-675
...was "clearly hearsay" andPage 8 the State failed to establish the data came within the business records exception); Edwards v. State, 60 So. 3d 529, 530-31 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (holding third-party GPS data was "clearly hearsay," and reversing a revocation of probation based on such evidence ......
-
Channell v. State, 1D15–3859.
...v. State, 711 So.2d 96, 97 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) ). Accord Eveland v. State, 189 So.3d 990, 991–92 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) ; Edwards v. State, 60 So.3d 529, 531 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011).In Ruise, the only evidence the state presented in support of the allegation that Ruise was away from his residence wa......
-
Judgment and sentence
...to be at specific times was hearsay from the probation officer based on records from the GPS monitoring company. Edwards v. State, 60 So. 3d 529 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) Evidence showing that defendant committed a new crime does not need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to support a finding......