Tornas v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tornas v. State

742 So. 2d 472, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 12545, 1999 WL 770627

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 22, 1999

DocketNo. 98-01596

StatusPublished

This text of 742 So. 2d 472 (Tornas 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

Tornas v. State, 742 So. 2d 472, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 12545, 1999 WL 770627 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Juan Tornas contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the revocation of his probation. We agree.

[473]*473Tornas was charged with violating condition three of his probation; specifically, that he changed his address from a specifically-named state correctional -facility without the prior knowledge of his probation officer. “A revocation of probation based on changing a residence without obtaining consent of the probation officer may be upheld if it is based on hearsay coupled with some other non-hearsay evidence.” Rowan v. State, 696 So.2d 842, 843 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). The only evidence presented in this case was the probation officer’s testimony as to information given to her by telephone by an unnamed Immigration and Naturalization Service person. This was clearly hearsay testimony which cannot be the sole basis for revocation.

Because the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support the revocation, we reverse the trial court’s order revoking Tornas’ probation.

BLUE, A.C.J., and FULMER and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Juan Tornas contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the revocation of his probation. We agree.

[473]*473Tornas was charged with violating condition three of his probation; specifically, that he changed his address from a specifically-named state correctional -facility without the prior knowledge of his probation officer. “A revocation of probation based on changing a residence without obtaining consent of the probation officer may be upheld if it is based on hearsay coupled with some other non-hearsay evidence.” Rowan v. State, 696 So.2d 842, 843 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). The only evidence presented in this case was the probation officer’s testimony as to information given to her by telephone by an unnamed Immigration and Naturalization Service person. This was clearly hearsay testimony which cannot be the sole basis for revocation.

Because the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support the revocation, we reverse the trial court’s order revoking Tornas’ probation.

BLUE, A.C.J., and FULMER and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

742 So. 2d 472, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 12545, 1999 WL 770627, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tornas-v-state-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack