From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Charles v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Apr 10, 1990
558 So. 2d 545 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

Opinion

No. 89-2639.

April 10, 1990.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court of Dade County; Arthur Maginnis, Judge.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Bruce A. Rosenthal, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Anita J. Gay, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before HUBBART, COPE and LEVY, JJ.


The State concedes that it was error for the trial court to revoke the defendant's probation when the only evidence presented at the probation violation hearing was hearsay testimony. Brown v. State, 537 So.2d 180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).

Accordingly, the order revoking probation is hereby reversed, with this cause being remanded without prejudice to the filing of "a further affidavit and further proceedings upon the violation upon which hearing was had." Hampton v. State, 276 So.2d 497 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). See Miller v. State, 444 So.2d 523 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Purvis v. State, 420 So.2d 389 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Reeves v. State, 366 So.2d 1229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); White v. State, 301 So.2d 464 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974).

Reversed and remanded.


Summaries of

Charles v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
Apr 10, 1990
558 So. 2d 545 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)
Case details for

Charles v. State

Case Details

Full title:STENIO CHARLES, APPELLANT, v. THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: Apr 10, 1990

Citations

558 So. 2d 545 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990)

Citing Cases

Mitchell v. State

However, a revocation of probation may not be based solely upon hearsay testimony. Frazier, 587 So.2d at 661;…