T.J., A CHILD, 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.
The court affirmed the revocation of a minor's probation for multiple violations including theft and burglary, but reversed the criminal mischief finding because it rested solely on hearsay evidence.
A probation violation based solely on hearsay evidence must be reversed, but reversal of one violation does not require reversal of the entire revocation order when other violations are supported by competent evidence.
[1] Hearsay evidence alone cannot support a finding of probation violation, though hearsay is generally admissible in probation proceedings.
[2] Reversal of one probation violation does not require reversal of the entire revocation order when other violations are supported by competent evidence and the court would…
Previewing 2 of 2 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 is admissible in violation of probation proceedings, but hearsay alone may not form the sole basis for revocation”
Court citing Russell v. State regarding the evidentiary standard for probation violations
A minor defendant was found guilty of numerous probation violations, including failing to complete community service, committing petit theft, grand th…
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
In this appeal, the minor defendant challenges an order finding him guilty of numerous violations of probation, including the commission of numerous substantive criminal offenses, and the resulting revocation of his probation and commitment to a level 6 facility. While defendant raises a number of issues, we affirm the trial court’s order in its entirety, save the finding that defendant violated probation by committing the crime of criminal mischief.
Since all the evidence purportedly establishing defendant as the culprit who threw a rock through the window of a Walgreens store was hearsay, we reverse this finding. See § 806.13(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2012) (defining offense of criminal mischief); Russell v. State, 982 So.2d 642, 646 (Fla.2008) (recognizing hearsay is admissible in violation of probation proceedings, but hearsay alone may not form the sole basis for revocation). The trial court’s order is affirmed in all other respects, including the findings that defendant violated his probation by failing to complete community service hours and committing petit theft, grand theft and burglary. See McKenzie v. State, — So.3d — (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (recognizing reversal of one of many violations does not require reversal of order of revocation or sentence, where, *159based upon the record, appellate court is confident the trial court would have revoked probation and imposed the same sentence).
. Reversed in part and Affirmed in part.
CIKLIN and GERBER, JJ., concur.