M.M. v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

M.M. v. State

839 So. 2d 881, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 3103, 2003 WL 1043164

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 12, 2003

DocketNo. 4D02-2503

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 839 So. 2d 881 (M.M. 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

M.M. v. State, 839 So. 2d 881, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 3103, 2003 WL 1043164 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

MAY, J.

The defendant appeals his adjudication of delinquency and commitment to a moderate risk residential program as a result of a violation of probation. He argues that the trial court erred in revoking his probation because the evidence consisted solely of inadmissable hearsay. We agree and reverse.

While hearsay is admissible in a violation of probation hearing, the revocation must be supported by evidence “which would be admissible at a criminal trial” and is actually admitted into evidence. Thomas v. State, 711 So.2d 96, 97 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). The orders and record in this case are insufficient to support the trial court’s adjudication and commitment for several reasons.

First, the trial court neither orally pronounced nor made written findings as to which violation the child was found guilty. Aidone v. State, 763 So.2d 1127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Second, the evidence consisted only of inadmissible hearsay. Sagner v. State, 776 So.2d 1088 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (revocation of probation cannot stand on hearsay evidence alone). Third, no foundation was laid for an exception to the hearsay rule. Cf. Russell v. State, 801 So.2d 999 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (affirming the revocation of probation based on hearsay evidence that was established as a business record exception). And fourth, the state never introduced the purported business records to substantiate any of the violations alleged. Bertoloti v. State, 831 So.2d 1281, 1282 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (reversing the revocation of probation where the state failed to actually move the records into evidence through the hearsay exception). Because of the deficiencies in this case, the adjudication of delinquency and the order of commitment are reversed.

STEVENSON and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

MAY, J.

The defendant appeals his adjudication of delinquency and commitment to a moderate risk residential program as a result of a violation of probation. He argues that the trial court erred in revoking his probation because the evidence consisted solely of inadmissable hearsay. We agree and reverse.

While hearsay is admissible in a violation of probation hearing, the revocation must be supported by evidence “which would be admissible at a criminal trial” and is actually admitted into evidence. Thomas v. State, 711 So.2d 96, 97 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). The orders and record in this case are insufficient to support the trial court’s adjudication and commitment for several reasons.

First, the trial court neither orally pronounced nor made written findings as to which violation the child was found guilty. Aidone v. State, 763 So.2d 1127 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Second, the evidence consisted only of inadmissible hearsay. Sagner v. State, 776 So.2d 1088 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (revocation of probation cannot stand on hearsay evidence alone). Third, no foundation was laid for an exception to the hearsay rule. Cf. Russell v. State, 801 So.2d 999 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (affirming the revocation of probation based on hearsay evidence that was established as a business record exception). And fourth, the state never introduced the purported business records to substantiate any of the violations alleged. Bertoloti v. State, 831 So.2d 1281, 1282 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (reversing the revocation of probation where the state failed to actually move the records into evidence through the hearsay exception). Because of the deficiencies in this case, the adjudication of delinquency and the order of commitment are reversed.

STEVENSON and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

839 So. 2d 881, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 3103, 2003 WL 1043164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mm-v-state-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack