Tuff v. State, 76--708
| Decision Date | 17 November 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 76--708,76--708 |
| Citation | 338 So.2d 1335 |
| Parties | Bob TUFF, Appellant v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jack O. Johnson, Public Defender, Bartow, and A. Wayne Chalu, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Richard G. Pippinger, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Appellant was placed on probation for breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony in violation of Section 810.02, Florida Statutes (1973). During the probation period, an affidavit and warrant were issued which accused the appellant of the following:
Violating Condition (B) of the Order of Probation which reads, 'Not later than the fifth day of each month, until the defendant's release, make a full and truthful report to the defendant's Probation Supervisor on the form provided for the purpose, or as otherwise directed by the supervisor.' to-wit: In that the aforesaid has failed to submit the necessary written monthly reports for the months of October, November, and December, 1975.
Violating Condition (H) of the Order of Probation which reads, 'Live and remain at liberty without violating law.' to-wit: In that on 1--13--76, the aforesaid was arrested by Detective H. E. Wareham and J. Lorenz of the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Department, for the offense of Breaking and Entering an Auto and Resisting Arrest with Violence.
A probation revocation hearing was held. At the hearing, appellant pled guilty to failing to file monthly reports as required by Condition (B). He pled not guilty to the other charge. The only evidence that appellant violated Condition (H) was contained in an unidentified report which gave an account of the arrest incident on which the Second probation violation charge was based. The trial judge read the report and recited a summary of its contents at the hearing.
Upon finding the appellant violated both Conditions (B) and (H), the trial judge revoked the appellant's probation and sentenced him to fifteen years imprisonment.
Appellant contends that it was eror for the trial court to revoke the probation on a finding of a violation of Condition (H) because the only evidence introduced on that charge was an unidentified report which was hearsay. We agree. A revocation of probation may not be based solely on hearsay. Brown v. State, 388 So.2d 573 (Fla.2d DCA 1976); Franklin v. State, 226 So.2d 461 (Fla.2d DCA 1969); McNeely v. State, 186...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. State
...2d DCA 1977) [Only evidence of violation of probation was supervisor's statement regarding what someone had told him]; Tuff v. State, 338 So.2d 1335 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976) [Only evidence in violation of probation was contained in an unidentified written report]; Brown v. State, 338 So.2d 573 (F......
-
Jess v. State
...cause so that the lower court may now make those determinations. Shanklin v. State, 369 So.2d 620 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Tuff v. State, 338 So.2d 1335 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); see McKeever v. State, 359 So.2d 905 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Jones v. State, 348 So.2d 942 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); compare Scherer ......
-
Wheeler v. State, 76--961
...of hearsay evidence. White v. State, 301 So.2d 464 (Fla.4th DCA 1974); Brown v. State, 338 So.2d 573 (Fla.2d DCA 1976); Tuff v. State, 338 So.2d 1335 (Fla.2d DCA 1976); Couch v. State, 341 So.2d 285 (Fla.2d DCA 1977) opinion filed January 19, 1977. Some of the more significant constitutiona......
-
Coxon v. State, 78-1104
...of the violation of a technical ground to support the revocation. McKeever v. State, 359 So.2d 905 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Tuff v. State, 338 So.2d 1335 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). But here the appellant's revocation is supported by ample evidence, including his own admission, that he left the county f......