Love v. State
458 So. 2d 432, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2385, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15960
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Love v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 438 So. 2d 142 →
Opinion
We are of the view that there was enough direct testimony, coupled with hearsay testimony, to support the trial judge’s decision to revoke the defendant’s probation. Wheeler v. State, 344 So.2d 630 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1977); Rathburn v. State, 353 So.2d 902 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).
As a consequence, we do not find it necessary to address the provisions of Section 827.07(8), Florida Statutes (1983).
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Love v. State, 458 So. 2d 432, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 2385, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 15960 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).
458 So. 2d 432 (Love v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Wheeler v. State
344 So. 2d 630 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1977)
Rathburn v. State
353 So. 2d 902 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1977)