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.
Although hearsay evidence that is not corroborated by non-hearsay evidence is insufficient to establish a probation violation, probation revocation may be affirmed when the record clearly demonstrates the trial court would have reached the same decision based on a single established violation.
[1] Hearsay evidence is admissible in violation of probation hearings, but hearsay evidence not corroborated by non-hearsay evidence is insufficient to establish a violation…
[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 valid finding of a probation violation,…
Previewing 2 of 3 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”
The court cited Rodgers v. State to establish the evidentiary standard for probation violations.
Tevin Baldwin was on probation when the State alleged he violated several conditions, including condition five by committing three new drug-related of…
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
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.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.