HARRIS
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.
Darryl Harris appeals a trial court order finding him in violation of a plea and pass agreement and sentencing him to nine months incarceration. The appellate court reverses, holding that the trial court improperly relied on hearsay and mere arrest evidence without proof of the underlying criminal act, and erroneously found willful violation of a program enrollment requirement when Harris was incarcerated during the enrollment period.
The trial court's findings are reversed. A probable cause affidavit, being hearsay, cannot form the sole basis for finding violation of a no-arrest condition, and mere evidence of arrest without proof of commission of the underlying act is insufficient. Additionally, Harris's failure to enroll could not be deemed willful when he was incarcerated during the last twenty-two days of the enrollment period.
[1] Hearsay evidence alone is insufficient to support a finding of a violation of a plea agreement or probation.
[2] A mere arrest, without evidence of the commission of the underlying offense, cannot serve as the sole basis for finding a violation of a plea agreement or probation.
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 may not form the only evidentiary support for the facts leading to a finding of a violation”
Establishes that while strict evidentiary rules do not apply to violation hearings, hearsay cannot be the sole basis for a finding of violation.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHarris entered into a plea and pass agreement with conditions including no new arrests and enrollment in a batterer's intervention program. Harris was…
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 Rules Of Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Beach, FL 33401.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Darryl Q. Harris appeals a trial court order finding him in violation of a plea and pass agreement and sentencing him to nine months incarceration with twenty-three days credit for time served. The trial court imposed the downside of the plea and pass agreement based upon Harris' failure to enroll in a batterer's intervention program coupled with a new arrest for Resisting Arrest Without Violence. We reverse.
The closest situation analogous to the finding of a violation of a plea and pass agreement is the revocation of probation based upon violations of probation conditions. Dale v. State, 9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 227b (Fla. 15th Jud. Cir. Feb. 14, 2002). At probation violation hearings, the strict rules of evidence are not required to be observed. Bernhardt v. State, 288 So. 2d 490, 500 (Fla. 1974). However, hearsay may not form the only evidentiary support for the facts leading to a finding of a violation. Johnson v. State, 962 So. 2d 394, 396 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). Here, the only evidence of Harris' violation of the “no new arrests” condition of the plea and pass agreement was the probable cause affidavit alleging Resisting Arrest Without Violence. Because the probable cause affidavit was hearsay, it could not provide the sole basis for the trial court's determination that Harris violated the "no new arrests" condition of the plea and pass agreement. Davis v. State, 831 So. 2d 792, 793 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Also, in this case, the trial court erred in imposing the downside of the plea and pass agreement solely on proof that Harris had been arrested, without evidence that Harris committed the underlying act. J.F. v. State, 889 So. 2d 130, 132 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); see also In the Interest of L.S., 553 So. 2d 345, 345 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (reversing the trial court's revocation of the defendant's community control, holding, “Mere evidence of an arrest is insufficient to violate a juvenile's community control”); Purvis v. State, 397 So. 2d 746, 747 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (finding that "[e]vidence of probationer's arrest, without more, will not support a revocation of probation" where the defendant allegedly violated the probation condition that he “live and remain at liberty without violating any law").
Additionally, the trial court erred in finding that Harris willfully violated the plea and pass agreement by failing to enroll in the batterer's intervention program. Harris was incarcerated during the last twenty-two days of his enrollment period; therefore, the record does not support the finding that Harris' failure to enroll in the program was willful. Muthra v. State, 777 So. 2d 1067, 1068 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).
Reversed and remanded.
BURTON, BROWN, and MILLER, JJ. concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Gideon Bernhardt v. State, 288 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 1974)
- Purvis v. State, 397 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- J.F. v. State, 889 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Johnson v. State, 962 So. 2d 394 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- In the Interest of L.S., 553 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Davis v. State, 831 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Muthra v. State, 777 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)