Pryor v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pryor v. State

151 So. 3d 61, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 18190, 2014 WL 5784613

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 7, 2014

Docket2D13-3753

StatusPublished

This text of 151 So. 3d 61 (Pryor 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

Pryor v. State, 151 So. 3d 61, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 18190, 2014 WL 5784613 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

MORRIS, Judge.

Darriohn Pryor appeals the revocation of his probation for possession of cocaine and his resulting prison sentence. We remand for the trial court to strike the violation of condition 43 from the order of revocation because the State offered only hearsay evidence, through the testimony of the probation officer, to support that violation. See Beecham v. State, 652 So.2d 1275, 1275 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). However, we affirm the revocation of Pryor’s probation because it is clear that the trial court would have revoked his probation based on the other two violations. See Bernier v. State, 951 So.2d 21, 22 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).

Affirmed; remanded.

KHOUZAM and CRENSHAW, JJ., concur.

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

MORRIS, Judge.

Darriohn Pryor appeals the revocation of his probation for possession of cocaine and his resulting prison sentence. We remand for the trial court to strike the violation of condition 43 from the order of revocation because the State offered only hearsay evidence, through the testimony of the probation officer, to support that violation. See Beecham v. State, 652 So.2d 1275, 1275 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). However, we affirm the revocation of Pryor’s probation because it is clear that the trial court would have revoked his probation based on the other two violations. See Bernier v. State, 951 So.2d 21, 22 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).

Affirmed; remanded.

KHOUZAM and CRENSHAW, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 So. 3d 61, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 18190, 2014 WL 5784613, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pryor-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack