H.J.W. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

H.J.W. v. State

127 So. 3d 701, 2013 WL 6083092, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 18434

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 20, 2013

DocketNo. 4D12-649

StatusPublished

This text of 127 So. 3d 701 (H.J.W. 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

H.J.W. v. State, 127 So. 3d 701, 2013 WL 6083092, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 18434 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant’s probation was revoked following a hearing. On appeal, the appellant argues that (1) the only evidence presented at the revocation hearing of him violating the condition to attend school each day was hearsay evidence, and (2) the disposition order failed to comply with the mandatory requirements for such orders. We affirm the revocation on the merits, concluding that the trial court properly found a violation of probation based on competent and substantial evidence, and not merely hearsay evidence. However, we remand the case so that the trial court can enter a written order that complies with the applicable laws for such orders.

The State concedes that the written disposition order failed to comply with the requirements of Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.115(d) (2012), as the order did not contain the age of the child, the disposition of each count, the degree of each offense, the maximum penalty defined by statute, nor the amount of time served in secure detention before disposition. Moreover, the State concedes that the order is deficient because it does not state the evidence relied upon nor the reasons for revoking probation. See A.T.J.F. v. State, 78 So.3d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).

Accordingly, we affirm the revocation, but remand the case with instructions for the trial court to enter a written order that complies with Rule 8.115(d) and the law requiring a written order that sets forth the specific reason(s) for the revocation. See Thomas v. State, 711 So.2d 96, 97 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (affirming the trial court’s decision because there was some non-hearsay evidence to support revocation, but remanding for a written order reflecting the reasons for revocation).

DAMOORGIAN, C.J., MAY and FORST, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant’s probation was revoked following a hearing. On appeal, the appellant argues that (1) the only evidence presented at the revocation hearing of him violating the condition to attend school each day was hearsay evidence, and (2) the disposition order failed to comply with the mandatory requirements for such orders. We affirm the revocation on the merits, concluding that the trial court properly found a violation of probation based on competent and substantial evidence, and not merely hearsay evidence. However, we remand the case so that the trial court can enter a written order that complies with the applicable laws for such orders.

The State concedes that the written disposition order failed to comply with the requirements of Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.115(d) (2012), as the order did not contain the age of the child, the disposition of each count, the degree of each offense, the maximum penalty defined by statute, nor the amount of time served in secure detention before disposition. Moreover, the State concedes that the order is deficient because it does not state the evidence relied upon nor the reasons for revoking probation. See A.T.J.F. v. State, 78 So.3d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).

Accordingly, we affirm the revocation, but remand the case with instructions for the trial court to enter a written order that complies with Rule 8.115(d) and the law requiring a written order that sets forth the specific reason(s) for the revocation. See Thomas v. State, 711 So.2d 96, 97 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (affirming the trial court’s decision because there was some non-hearsay evidence to support revocation, but remanding for a written order reflecting the reasons for revocation).

DAMOORGIAN, C.J., MAY and FORST, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 So. 3d 701, 2013 WL 6083092, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 18434, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hjw-v-state-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack