TEVIN BALDWIN
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Tevin Baldwin appealed his probation revocation, arguing insufficient evidence supported findings of multiple probation violations. The court affirmed the revocation based on Baldwin's commission of three new drug offenses but remanded to correct the revocation order, as the trial court's written findings included unsupported hearsay-based violations that should be omitted.
While uncorroborated hearsay was insufficient to establish certain probation violations, the court affirmed the probation revocation because the trial court's finding that Baldwin committed three new drug offenses clearly would have supported the same revocation decision standing alone. However, the revocation order must be corrected to reflect only the violations actually supported by evidence.
[1] Hearsay evidence is admissible in violation of probation hearings, but hearsay evidence that is not corroborated by non-hearsay evidence is insufficient to establish a vi…
[2] A trial court's decision to revoke probation will be affirmed if the court would have reached the same decision based solely on a properly supported violation, even if ot…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“hearsay evidence is admissible in violation of probation hearings, but hearsay evidence that is not corroborated by non-hearsay evidence is insufficient to establish a violation of probation”
Establishes the evidentiary standard for probation violations: hearsay alone is insufficient without corroboration.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBaldwin was on probation with multiple conditions. The trial court found he violated condition five by committing three new drug-related offenses, and…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Sufficiency Of Evidence For Probation Violation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Tevin Baldwin appeals from the judgments and sentences imposed after the trial court found that he violated several conditions of his probation. We reject Baldwin’s argument that there was insufficient evidence to establish that he violated condition five of his probation by committing three new drug-related offenses. But Baldwin correctly asserts that the State failed to establish the remaining violations with evidence other than hearsay. See Rodgers v. State, 171 So. 3d 236, 238 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (hearsay evidence is admissible in violation of probation hearings, but hearsay evidence that is not corroborated by non-hearsay evidence is insufficient to establish a violation of probation). We nonetheless affirm the revocation of Baldwin’s probation and the resulting sentences because it is clear from the record that the trial court would have made the same decision based solely on its finding that Baldwin committed three new law violations. We note that the revocation order does not conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement that Baldwin violated condition five of his probation on three occasions. We therefore remand this matter to the trial court with directions to enter a corrected revocation order that conforms to the oral pronouncement on condition five and omits the findings that Baldwin violated the other conditions of probation. AFFIRMED and REMANDED with instructions. ROBERTS, RAY, and WINSOR, JJ., concur. _____________________________