Wallace v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wallace v. State

440 So. 2d 58, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 23620

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 9, 1983

DocketNo. 83-384

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 440 So. 2d 58 (Wallace 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

Wallace v. State, 440 So. 2d 58, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 23620 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals an order revoking his probation. The defendant allegedly committed one robbery and engaged in a conspiracy to commit another robbery. He [59]*59was also charged with several other technical violations relating to monthly reports, costs of supervision, and change of residence. The only evidence supporting the robbery violation was hearsay testimony. A finding of violation based solely on hearsay is erroneous. Reeves v. State, 366 So.2d 1229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), and Combs v. State, 351 So.2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).

We, therefore, vacate the violation based on defendant’s alleged participation in the robbery and affirm the overall revocation of his probation based on the remaining violations. Adequate evidence supported the technical violations and the conspiracy violation.

AFFIRMED.

BERANEK and DELL, JJ., concur. ANSTEAD, C.J., dissents in part with opinion.

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

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals an order revoking his probation. The defendant allegedly committed one robbery and engaged in a conspiracy to commit another robbery. He [59]*59was also charged with several other technical violations relating to monthly reports, costs of supervision, and change of residence. The only evidence supporting the robbery violation was hearsay testimony. A finding of violation based solely on hearsay is erroneous. Reeves v. State, 366 So.2d 1229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), and Combs v. State, 351 So.2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).

We, therefore, vacate the violation based on defendant’s alleged participation in the robbery and affirm the overall revocation of his probation based on the remaining violations. Adequate evidence supported the technical violations and the conspiracy violation.

AFFIRMED.

BERANEK and DELL, JJ., concur. ANSTEAD, C.J., dissents in part with opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

440 So. 2d 58, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 23620, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wallace-v-state-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack