Hampton v. State
| Decision Date | 01 March 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 72--1033,72--1033 |
| Parties | Charles Wade HAMPTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and John Lipinski, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Richard Mattaway, Legal Intern, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, C.J., and PEARSON and CHARLES CARROLL, JJ.
The appellant was found guilty of attempted robbery; however, adjudication of guilt was withheld, and an order withholding entry of sentence and placing him on probation for seven years was entered. Thereafter, an affidavit of violation of probation was filed by his probation supervisor. The violation alleged was as follows:
An adjudication of insolvency and appointment of public defender to represent appellant's interests was entered. Thereafter, a hearing was held before the court on the alleged probation violation. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court entered its judgment revoking probation and sentencing the appellant to five years in the state penitentiary. This appeal is from that judgment.
It affirmatively appears from the record of the hearing that the only evidence in support of the charged violation of probation was hearsay testimony. The courts of this state have uniformly held that although proceedings upon the revocation of probation may be informal in nature and are not rendered erroneous by the admission of hearsay testimony, yet a judgment revoking probation may not be Therefore, the order revoking probation is reversed, and the judgment and sentence is set aside with directions to return the appellant to probation under the terms and conditions originally established.
entered when there is no other evidence except hearsay testimony. Franklin v. State, Fla.App.1969, 226 So.2d 461.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
The appellee, State of Florida, having filed its petition for rehearing in which it expresses concern that this court's opinion and decision filed on this appeal may be interpreted as barring further proceedings upon the violation of probation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Singletary v. State
...The revocation was not based solely upon hearsay evidence as in Franklin v. State, 226 So.2d 461 (2 DCA Fla.1969); Hampton v. State, 276 So.2d 497 (3 DCA Fla.1973), and Mato v. State, 278 So.2d 672 (3 DCA If, at final hearing, the court is satisfied, from the probationer's admissions, or fr......
-
Jones v. State
...293 So.2d 771 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974) [Only witness's testimony was based on what he had been told by a third person]; Hampton v. State, 276 So.2d 497 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973) [Nature of hearsay unknown]; Franklin v. State, 226 So.2d 461 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969) [Hearsay that appellant, a minor, purchased ......
-
Purvis v. State
...2d DCA 1979); Robbins v. State, 318 So.2d 472 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); White v. State, 301 So.2d 464 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Hampton v. State, 276 So.2d 497 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). ...
-
Clemons v. State, 80-606
...same violation, the state may seek a second hearing on revocation based upon violation of condition 3. Tuff v. State; Hampton v. State, 276 So.2d 497 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). REVERSED AND SCHEB, C. J., and CAMPBELL, J., concur. ...