KESANIC CRUME, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Kesanic Crume appealed his probation violation finding, challenging the trial court's determination that he willfully violated probation by failing to report to his probation officer upon release from jail. The appellate court reversed, holding that the state failed to present competent evidence that Crume was ever instructed to report.
The court reversed the probation violation finding because the state failed to meet its burden of proof. The only evidence presented was uncorroborated hearsay testimony from the probation supervisor regarding file entries of undisclosed authorship, and the written probation order itself contained no instruction to report upon release.
[1] A defendant's probation cannot be revoked absent competent record evidence that the defendant was instructed to comply with a specific condition of probation.
[2] The state must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant willfully violated a substantial condition of probation before it can be revoked.
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“Before a trial court can revoke a defendant's probation, the state must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant willfully violated a substantial condition of his probation.”
Establishes the legal standard required for probation revocation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCrume entered no contest pleas to probation violations and was sentenced to 51 months in Orange County Jail. Upon release, he resumed residence in Ora…
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 Revocation cases and more on FLexlaw
ANTOON, Judge.
Kesanic Crume (defendant) appeals the trial court’s order finding that he willfully violated the terms of his probation by failing to report to his probation officer upon his release from the Orange County Jail. We reverse because there is no competent record evidence establishing that the defendant was instructed to so report.
After entering no contest pleas to charges of violating his probation, the defendant was sentenced to a term of 51 months in the Orange County Jail. Upon completion of this jail sentence, the defendant resumed his residence in Orange County. Twenty-one days after he was released from custody, a warrant was issued for the defendant’s arrest alleging that he had violated his probation by failing to report to his probation officer as instructed.
At the violation of probation hearing, the defendant testified that he was never advised in person or in writing to report to the probation office upon his release. The only evidence presented by the state in this regard was the testimony of a supervisor from the probation office. The supervisor stated, “According to our records, he was supposed to be released and report to us after his release from the Orange County Jail, which he failed to do.” The supervisor did not state who prepared the record. When specifically asked whether the defendant had been instructed to report to the probation office upon his release, the supervisor responded, “[TJhere was no, there was nothing in the file to say that....” Additionally, our independent review of the written probation order reveals that the order does not include an instruction that the defendant report to the probation office upon his release from jail.
Before a trial court can revoke a defendant’s probation, the state must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant willfully violated a substantial condition of his probation. Van Wagner v. State, 677 So. 2d 314, 316 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Kolovrat v. State, 574 So. 2d 294, 297 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). Although hearsay evidence is admissible in violation of probation hearings, a violation cannot be sustained solely on hearsay evidence. Andrews v. State, 693 So. 2d 1138, 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).
In the instant ease, the only evidence submitted by the state to prove that the defendant was instructed to report to the probation office was the uncorroborated hearsay testimony of the probation supervisor. The source of this hearsay was an entry in the supervisor’s file, the author of which was undisclosed. The state offered no substantive evidence that the defendant was instructed to report to a probation officer upon his release. As a result, the state failed to meet its burden of proof. We must therefore reverse.1 See Ware v. State, 575 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).
ORDER REVERSED.
PETERSON and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. . We recognize that trial judges are burdened with technical requirements which make sentencing proceedings tedious and provide less time for meaningful dialogue with the defendants and victims. As a result, it is understandable that judges sometimes fail to advise defendants that it is their responsibility to contact their respective probation offices upon release from incarceration. We note that the Circuit Court in Brevard County has addressed this problem by including in its probation orders the following special condition:
You shall report in person within 72 hours of your release from confinement to the Probation and Parole Office in Brevard County, Florida, unless otherwise instructed by your officer. (This condition applies only if released from the Department of Corrections confinement.) Otherwise, you must report immediately to (address of Probation and Parole).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Morris v. State, 727 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…ied the daughter told them Morris had hurt her mother and that they were having a fight. Hearsay evidence is admissible in violation of probation hearings, but a violation cannot be sustained solely on the basis of hearsay evidence. Crume v. State, 703 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Jones v. State, 423 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). The statements referenced above were hearsay, but the substance of the statements was corroborated by the deputies’ testimony at the hearing, which was direct evidence — not he…1 / 2
-
Carter v. State, 82 So. 3d 993 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…Mr. Carter’s hearsay objection. “ ‘Although hearsay evidence is admissible in violation of probation hearings, a violation cannot be sustained solely on hearsay evidence.’ Andrews v. State, 693 So. 2d 1138, 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).” Crume v. State, 703 So. 2d 1216, 1217 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). At the end of the hearing in the present case, the trial judge found that the state had presented sufficient non-hearsay evidence based on Officer Guedez’s field or “presumptive office test” and revoked probation: Officer…
-
Rothery v. State, 757 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…ust prove, by a preponderance of evidence, that the defendant willfully violated a substantial condition of his probation. Strunk v. State, 728 So. 2d 320, 321 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Fields v. State, 737 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999); Crume v. State, 703 So. 2d 1216, 1217 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Prior to violating a condition of probation, a defendant must have notice of the condition. All defendants are on constructive notice of the general conditions 1 through 11 in the form order of probation, contained in the…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- VAN Wagner v. State, 677 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Kolovrat v. State, 574 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Myles Franklin Andrews v. State, 693 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Ware v. State, 575 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)