White v. State, 1D14–3757.
Decision Date | 08 July 2015 |
Docket Number | No. 1D14–3757.,1D14–3757. |
Citation | 170 So.3d 144 |
Parties | Marcus WHITE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Joel Arnold, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Angela R. Hensel and Jillian H. Reding, Assistant Attorneys General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
Appellant, Marcus White, appeals the revocation of his probation. We agree with Appellant's contention that the revocation was based solely on hearsay. Accordingly, we reverse.
During the violation of probation hearing, Appellant's probation officer testified that on the evening at issue, she went to Appellant's home to check his compliance with the curfew condition of his probation. She did not get out of her car but communicated with Appellant's uncle and an unnamed woman, who were in a group that was drinking and talking on Appellant's porch. Appellant's uncle stated that Appellant had gone to a store, and the unnamed woman stated that Appellant was in the shower inside the house. Neither would retrieve Appellant from the home, and when the unnamed woman began to raise her voice, the probation officer chose to leave for her own safety. Before leaving, the probation officer asked the woman to tell Appellant she had come by and to contact her. Appellant did not call the probation officer until the next morning, when he stated that he had been in the shower when she arrived and that his uncle had been drunk and had lied about Appellant's whereabouts.
The trial court found Appellant in violation of his probation for failing to adhere to his curfew, revoked his probation, and sentenced him to thirty-six months in prison.
That sentence was later reduced to thirty-three months for an unrelated reason.
While a trial court has broad discretion to determine whether a person has willfully and substantially violated his probation, findings supporting that determination must be supported by competent, substantial evidence. Prickett v. State, 895 So.2d 533, 534 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) ; Van Wagner v. State, 677 So.2d 314, 317 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Hearsay evidence is admissible at evidentiary hearings for probation revocation, but a decision to revoke probation cannot be based entirely on hearsay. Smith–Curles v. State, 24 So.3d 702, 702–03 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) ; Stewart v. State, 926 So.2d 413, 414 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) ; C.B.H. v. State, 117 So.3d 450, 451 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rodgers v. State
...violated his probation, findings supporting that determination must be supported by competent, substantial evidence.” White v. State, 170 So.3d 144, (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). Hearsay evidence, though admissible in violation-of-probation hearings, is not sufficient alone to establish a violation.......
-
Williams v. State
...2020). Competent, substantial evidence must support any factual findings on which that revocation decision is based. White v. State , 170 So. 3d 144, 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). Competent, substantial evidence is "such evidence as will establish a substantial basis of fact from which the fact ......
- Graham v. State
-
Palancar v. State, 4D14–3935.
...violated his probation, findings supporting that determination must be supported by competent, substantial evidence." White v. State, 170 So.3d 144, 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015).The state alleged Palancar violated his probation by, among other things, committing the new offense of disorderly int......
-
Judgment and sentence
...solely upon the statement of defendant’s uncle to the visiting probation officer that defendant had gone to the store. White v. State, 170 So. 3d 144 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) When sentencing for VOP, the court must specify the new law offenses that led to the violation. Fowler v. State, 79 So. 3......