Lira v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lira v. State of Florida

579 So. 2d 781, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 4079, 1991 WL 72037

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 7, 1991

DocketNo. 90-2258

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 579 So. 2d 781 (Lira v. State of Florida) 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

Lira v. State of Florida, 579 So. 2d 781, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 4079, 1991 WL 72037 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Francisco Lira appeals an order of revocation of community control. The trial court revoked defendant’s community control after finding three separate violations. Defendant concedes that two of the three grounds were valid and that the revocation was proper. He contends, however, that the finding that he committed aggravated battery was supported solely by hearsay testimony and must be stricken from the order of revocation. We agree.

At the probation revocation hearing the only testimony which connected the defendant to the battery of the victim was the hearsay testimony of the probation officer and the police officer. While hearsay evidence is admissible in probation or community control revocation proceedings, it is impermissible to find a violation where the only evidence connecting the defendant to the crime is hearsay. Davis v. State, 510 So.2d 1247 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Walker v. State, 426 So.2d 1180, 1181 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Clayton v. State, 422 So.2d 83, 84 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Combs v. State, 351 So.2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); see also Scott v. State, 406 So.2d 100, 101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).

Because the order of revocation of community control is supported by two valid grounds, the order is affirmed, but the cause is remanded with directions to strike the finding that the defendant committed the crime of aggravated battery.

Order affirmed; remanded with directions.

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

PER CURIAM.

Francisco Lira appeals an order of revocation of community control. The trial court revoked defendant’s community control after finding three separate violations. Defendant concedes that two of the three grounds were valid and that the revocation was proper. He contends, however, that the finding that he committed aggravated battery was supported solely by hearsay testimony and must be stricken from the order of revocation. We agree.

At the probation revocation hearing the only testimony which connected the defendant to the battery of the victim was the hearsay testimony of the probation officer and the police officer. While hearsay evidence is admissible in probation or community control revocation proceedings, it is impermissible to find a violation where the only evidence connecting the defendant to the crime is hearsay. Davis v. State, 510 So.2d 1247 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Walker v. State, 426 So.2d 1180, 1181 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Clayton v. State, 422 So.2d 83, 84 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Combs v. State, 351 So.2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); see also Scott v. State, 406 So.2d 100, 101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).

Because the order of revocation of community control is supported by two valid grounds, the order is affirmed, but the cause is remanded with directions to strike the finding that the defendant committed the crime of aggravated battery.

Order affirmed; remanded with directions.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

579 So. 2d 781, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 4079, 1991 WL 72037, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lira-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack