Turner v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Turner v. State

132 So. 3d 378, 2014 WL 537486, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 1836

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 12, 2014

DocketNo. 4D12-4475

StatusPublished

This text of 132 So. 3d 378 (Turner 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

Turner v. State, 132 So. 3d 378, 2014 WL 537486, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 1836 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Matthew Turner, appeals the trial court’s revocation of probation based on a finding that he committed the new crime of burglary of a dwelling. The trial court’s finding was supported solely by hearsay evidence. Because hearsay alone is insufficient to establish a violation of a condition of probation, the trial court abused its discretion in revoking appel[379]*379lant’s probation. Hendricks v. State, 59 So.3d 368, 370 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); Ford v. State, 678 So.2d 432, 432 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Clayton v. State, 422 So.2d 83, 83 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). Appellant’s original probationary period began on July 21, 2010, and would have expired on July 21, 2012. For this reason, on remand, the trial court shall discharge appellant from incarceration and not restore him to supervision. Thompson v. State, 974 So.2d 594, 599-600 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).

Reversed and remanded.

DAMOORGIAN, C.J., GERBER and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Matthew Turner, appeals the trial court’s revocation of probation based on a finding that he committed the new crime of burglary of a dwelling. The trial court’s finding was supported solely by hearsay evidence. Because hearsay alone is insufficient to establish a violation of a condition of probation, the trial court abused its discretion in revoking appel[379]*379lant’s probation. Hendricks v. State, 59 So.3d 368, 370 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); Ford v. State, 678 So.2d 432, 432 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Clayton v. State, 422 So.2d 83, 83 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982). Appellant’s original probationary period began on July 21, 2010, and would have expired on July 21, 2012. For this reason, on remand, the trial court shall discharge appellant from incarceration and not restore him to supervision. Thompson v. State, 974 So.2d 594, 599-600 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008).

Reversed and remanded.

DAMOORGIAN, C.J., GERBER and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

132 So. 3d 378, 2014 WL 537486, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 1836, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/turner-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack