FORBES v. The State of Fla.
| Decision Date | 23 June 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 3D08-1579.,3D08-1579. |
| Citation | 38 So.3d 232 |
| Parties | Chonton FORBES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Howard K. Blumberg, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Timothy R.M. Thomas, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before SUAREZ, CORTIÑAS, and LAGOA, JJ.
The defendant appeals from a violation and revocation of probation for attempted strong-arm robbery. We reverse the revocation of probation on the ground that there is insufficient evidence from which the trial court could have concluded that the defendant violated his probation.
On February 14, 2008, the State filed an affidavit of violation of probation alleging violation of the terms of the defendant's probation by failing to live without violating the law, in that, on February 13, 2008, he was arrested for the purchase and possession of cocaine. The defendant's probation was revoked and he was given credit for time served from the date of his arrest. At his violation of probation hearing, a City of Miami Police officer with the Crime Suppression Unit testified that, while on surveillance duty on February 14, 2008, he observed the defendant ride up on a bicycle and engage in conversation and exchange currency for an unknown item. Another tactical unit stopped the defendant, searched him, and found in his pocket two plastic baggies containing what the officer suspected was powder cocaine. No field tests were conducted on the suspect cocaine and it was impounded and given to the lab. The officer could not offer an opinion as to whether the substance in the baggies was cocaine. Over defense objection, a lab report with a positive indication of cocaine was entered into evidence. The defendant testified that he did not have cocaine in his possession and denied having two baggies of powder cocaine. He stated that the officers found scratch-off tickets in his pockets. He admitted to smoking crack cocaine on the night before his arrest. Based upon the defendant's admission, the officer's testimony and the lab report, the trial court found that the defendant had violated his probation and revoked it. The defendant was sentenced to five years in prison as a habitual offender and given credit for time served from the date of his arrest. The trial judge denied defense counsel's request for additional credit for time served.
The standard of review of the trial court's revocation of probation is abuse of discretion. State v. Carter, 835 So.2d 259 (Fla.2002). We agree with the defendant that the lab report was not admissible into evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule. See Hogan v. State, 583 So.2d 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (). The lab report is nevertheless admissible as hearsay at a probation violation hearing. Isaac v. State, 971 So.2d 908 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). However, hearsay alone is an insufficient basis upon which to revoke probation. Isaac v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bray v. State
...1st DCA 1991); Legree v. State, 739 So.2d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). The laboratory report was hearsay. Hogan v. State; Forbes v. State, 38 So.3d 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). Moreover, the testimony of the community control officers was hearsay. While both officers testified that they had conducte......
-
McDoughall v. State
...the court's revocation of McDoughall's probation based on the new charges for drug possession and trafficking. See Forbes v. State, 38 So.3d 232, 233–34 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); see also Lewis v. State, 995 So.2d 1123, 1124–25 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). Because we find that the evidence was insufficie......
-
Duquesne v. State, 3D17–579
...of the defendant's probation for an abuse of discretion. See State v. Carter, 835 So.2d 259, 262 (Fla. 2002) ; Forbes v. State, 38 So.3d 232, 233 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). Further, "[a]s part of such review, ‘there must be evidence in the record to support a finding that any violation was willful......
-
Bray v. State
...1st DCA1991); Legree v. State, 739 So. 2d 616 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). The laboratory report was hearsay. Hogan v. State; Forbes v. State, 38 So. 3d 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). Moreover, the testimony of the community control officers was hearsay. While both officers testified that they had conduct......
-
Judgment and sentence
...over objection. Where the LEO is unable to testify that the substance is cocaine, the court errs in finding a violation. Forbes v. State, 38 So. 3d 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE 7-77 Judgment and Sentence: Probation and Community Control 7.4 The court errs in finding a VOP du......
-
Crimes
...over objection. Where the LEO is unable to testify that the substance is cocaine, the court errs in finding a violation. Forbes v. State, 38 So. 3d 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) 10-33 Crimes: Controlled Substances 10.8 CRIMES Dual convictions for crimes involving the same kind of drug found in dif......