T.J., a child v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

T.J., a child v. State

162 So. 3d 158, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 1050, 2015 WL 340693

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 28, 2015

Docket4D13-1282

StatusPublished

This text of 162 So. 3d 158 (T.J., a child 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

T.J., a child v. State, 162 So. 3d 158, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 1050, 2015 WL 340693 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

STEVENSON, J.

In this appeal, the minor defendant challenges an order finding him guilty of numerous violations of probation, including the commission of numerous substantive criminal offenses, and the resulting revocation of his probation and commitment to a level 6 facility. While defendant raises a number of issues, we affirm the trial court’s order in its entirety, save the finding that defendant violated probation by committing the crime of criminal mischief.

Since all the evidence purportedly establishing defendant as the culprit who threw a rock through the window of a Walgreens store was hearsay, we reverse this finding. See § 806.13(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2012) (defining offense of criminal mischief); Russell v. State, 982 So.2d 642, 646 (Fla.2008) (recognizing hearsay is admissible in violation of probation proceedings, but hearsay alone may not form the sole basis for revocation). The trial court’s order is affirmed in all other respects, including the findings that defendant violated his probation by failing to complete community service hours and committing petit theft, grand theft and burglary. See McKenzie v. State, — So.3d — (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (recognizing reversal of one of many violations does not require reversal of order of revocation or sentence, where, *159 based upon the record, appellate court is confident the trial court would have revoked probation and imposed the same sentence).

. Reversed in part and Affirmed in part.

CIKLIN and GERBER, JJ., concur.

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

STEVENSON, J.

In this appeal, the minor defendant challenges an order finding him guilty of numerous violations of probation, including the commission of numerous substantive criminal offenses, and the resulting revocation of his probation and commitment to a level 6 facility. While defendant raises a number of issues, we affirm the trial court’s order in its entirety, save the finding that defendant violated probation by committing the crime of criminal mischief.

Since all the evidence purportedly establishing defendant as the culprit who threw a rock through the window of a Walgreens store was hearsay, we reverse this finding. See § 806.13(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2012) (defining offense of criminal mischief); Russell v. State, 982 So.2d 642, 646 (Fla.2008) (recognizing hearsay is admissible in violation of probation proceedings, but hearsay alone may not form the sole basis for revocation). The trial court’s order is affirmed in all other respects, including the findings that defendant violated his probation by failing to complete community service hours and committing petit theft, grand theft and burglary. See McKenzie v. State, — So.3d — (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (recognizing reversal of one of many violations does not require reversal of order of revocation or sentence, where, *159 based upon the record, appellate court is confident the trial court would have revoked probation and imposed the same sentence).

. Reversed in part and Affirmed in part.

CIKLIN and GERBER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 So. 3d 158, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 1050, 2015 WL 340693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tj-a-child-v-state-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack