Cito v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cito v. State

721 So. 2d 1192, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 14340, 1998 WL 796704

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 13, 1998

DocketNo. 97-02775

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 721 So. 2d 1192 (Cito v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cito v. State, 721 So. 2d 1192, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 14340, 1998 WL 796704 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Vito Cito, Jr., appeals the final judgment entered after the trial court found that he violated several conditions of his probation. We affirm, but strike a portion of the trial court’s order as to condition (3) of probation.

We conclude that there was sufficient evidence for the trial court to find that Cito violated probation conditions (7), (10), (18), and (19). However, Cito correctly argues that there was insufficient evidence to support revocation based on a violation of condition (3), changing residence without permission. The only evidence of this violation was hearsay testimony from his probation officer that his mother stated that she did not know where he was. See Rowan v. State, 696 So.2d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Accordingly, we strike that portion of the trial court’s order. See Raines v. State, 445 So.2d 408 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).

Affirmed.

PARKER, C.J., and CASANUEVA, J., and DANAHY, PAUL W. Senior Judge, Concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Vito Cito, Jr., appeals the final judgment entered after the trial court found that he violated several conditions of his probation. We affirm, but strike a portion of the trial court’s order as to condition (3) of probation.

We conclude that there was sufficient evidence for the trial court to find that Cito violated probation conditions (7), (10), (18), and (19). However, Cito correctly argues that there was insufficient evidence to support revocation based on a violation of condition (3), changing residence without permission. The only evidence of this violation was hearsay testimony from his probation officer that his mother stated that she did not know where he was. See Rowan v. State, 696 So.2d 842 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Accordingly, we strike that portion of the trial court’s order. See Raines v. State, 445 So.2d 408 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).

Affirmed.

PARKER, C.J., and CASANUEVA, J., and DANAHY, PAUL W. Senior Judge, Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

721 So. 2d 1192, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 14340, 1998 WL 796704, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cito-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack