White v. State, 1D14–3757.

Decision Date08 July 2015
Docket NumberNo. 1D14–3757.,1D14–3757.
Citation170 So.3d 144
PartiesMarcus WHITE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida 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.

Opinion

RAY, J.

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) (concluding that a probation officer's testimony was insufficient to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Rodgers v. State
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • August 14, 2015
    ...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
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • August 20, 2021
    ...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
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • July 8, 2015
  • Palancar v. State, 4D14–3935.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • July 6, 2016
    ...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......
1 books & journal articles
  • Judgment and sentence
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books The Florida Criminal Cases Notebook. Volume 1-2 Volume 1
    • April 30, 2021
    ...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......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT