Reeves v. State, 78-1621
| Decision Date | 31 January 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-1621,78-1621 |
| Citation | 366 So.2d 1229 |
| Parties | Terry Lee REEVES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jack O. Johnson, Public Defender, W. C. McLain, Asst. Public Defender, and David A. Davis, Legal Intern, Bartow, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William I. Munsey, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
An affidavit and warrant were filed charging appellant with having violated his probation in three respects: (1) changing his approved residence without his supervisor's permission, (2) failing to submit the required monthly reports for June through October 1976, and (3) failing to pay court costs imposed as a condition of his probation. The only evidence offered was the testimony of appellant's probation officer, who was assigned to appellant following the dates of the alleged violations and who had no first-hand knowledge of the facts. He relied on the allegations of the affidavit and the written report of appellant's previous probation officer, further noting that he had a certified copy of a judgment and sentence received by appellant for a motor vehicle theft in Georgia.
All of the evidence introduced against appellant was hearsay. 1 While hearsay is admissible in revocation proceedings, probation may not be revoked solely on the basis of hearsay. Tuff v. State, 338 So.2d 1335 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Combs v. State, 351 So.2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).
Accordingly, the order revoking appellant's probation and the judgment and sentence entered against him are reversed and the cause remanded with instructions to reinstate appellant's probation. 2
1 While evidence of a criminal conviction subsequent to placement of a defendant on probation is a sufficient basis upon which to revoke probation, the evidence concerning appellant's Georgia conviction was unavailing at the instant revocation hearing for two reasons: (1) It was not one of the violations charged in the affidavit or warrant, and (2) a certified copy of the judgment and sentence was not introduced into evidence at the hearing.
2 This reversal does not, of course, bar a second revocation hearing based on the filing of a new affidavit alleging the same violations, 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), or the initiation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cuciak v. State
...a suspended license which we find meritorious. This violation was established solely by hearsay and is thus reversed. Reeves v. State, 366 So.2d 1229 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1979), and Combs v. State, 351 So.2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). We thus reverse the Count III finding but affirm the conviction ......
-
Scott v. State
...does not "bar a second revocation hearing based on the filing of a new affidavit alleging the same violations." Reeves v. State, 366 So.2d 1229, 1230 n. 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); see also Robbins v. State, 318 So.2d 472, 473 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). Double jeopardy protection does not operate in vi......
-
Reynolds v. State, Case No. 5D17-3820
...‘bar a second revocation hearing based on the filing of a new affidavit alleging the same violations.’ " (quoting Reeves v. State , 366 So. 2d 1229, 1230 n.2 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) )).Accordingly, I would reverse and remand the order of revocation and the related sentence. Should the State so d......
-
Cerny v. State
...filing of a new affidavit alleging the same violations, see Boyd v. State, 1 So.3d 1186, 1188 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Reeves v. State, 366 So.2d 1229, 1230 n. 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Scott v. State, 937 So.2d 746, 748–49 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), provided that Mr. Cerny's probationary terms have not e......