Thomas v. State, 97-2839
| Decision Date | 15 April 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-2839,97-2839 |
| Citation | 711 So.2d 96 |
| Parties | 23 Fla. L. Weekly D973 Larry THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Gary Caldwell, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Maya Saxena, Assistant Attorney General, Ft. Lauderdale, for appellee.
The appellant contends that the trial court erred in revoking his probation because all of the evidence on which the revocation was based was hearsay. We affirm.
Appellant's community control officer testified as to what three witnesses, who were not present at the revocation hearing, told him. This was, of course, hearsay as is defined by section 90.801(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1995). The officer also testified, however, as to what the appellant told him by way of explanation as to why he was not where he was supposed to be under the terms of his probation. That testimony, although generally defined as hearsay, would be admissible in evidence at a criminal trial as an exception to the hearsay rule because it is an admission by a party under section 90.803(18), Florida Statutes (1995).
Although probation cannot be revoked based only on hearsay evidence which would be inadmissible at a criminal trial, 1 revocation can be grounded on a combination of that type of evidence and evidence which is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. McPherson v. State, 530 So.2d 1095 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (). The question is not, as appellant seems to believe, whether all of the evidence is generally defined as hearsay, but rather whether there is some evidence to support revocation which would be admissible at a criminal trial. Because the officer's testimony as to appellant's excuse (which conflicted with appellant's testimony at the hearing) would have been admissible at a trial, there was sufficient evidence to revoke.
We do agree with appellant that he was entitled to a written statement by the trial court reflecting the reasons for the revocation. We therefore affirm the revocation but remand for the written order. Mitchell v. State, 681 So.2d 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stewart v. State, 1D05-1824.
...Meade v. State, 799 So.2d 430, 433 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Gammon v. State, 778 So.2d 390, 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Thomas v. State, 711 So.2d 96, 97 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Andrews v. State, 693 So.2d 1138, 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). As we said in Meade (in regard to revocation of probation), "[b]......
-
Campbell v. State
...that would be admissible at a criminal trial. See Gammon v. State, 778 So.2d 390, 391-92 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Thomas v. State, 711 So.2d 96, 97 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). The evidence that would be admissible at trial must be evidence relating to the defendant's misconduct leading to the violation......
-
Hall v. State, 98-1227.
...can be revoked on the basis of hearsay if that hearsay is corroborated by other non-hear-say evidence. See e.g., Thomas v. State, 711 So.2d 96 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Miller v. State, 661 So.2d 353 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Corona v. State, 642 So.2d 667 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Mathis v. State, 545 So.......
-
EP v. State, 4D04-952.
...evidence, the juvenile's admission was direct evidence from which the court could properly find him in violation. Thomas v. State, 711 So.2d 96, 97 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); see also Snell v. State, 658 So.2d 1165, 1166 (Fla. 2d DCA Because there was competent evidence proving the juvenile willf......