Johnson v. State, 667 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Johnson v. State, 667 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: EJ v. State (fladistctapp, 2010-02-10)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) EJ v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
See Matos v. State, 956 So.2d 1240, 1240 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (affirming revocation of community control after striking some of the violations but finding other violations were supported by the evidence); Butler v. State, 932 So.2d 306, 307 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (recognizing that when an appellate court reverses on a finding regarding one of the conditions of community control, remand is not required if the remaining violation or violations are substantial); Rawlins v. State, 711 So.2d 137, 137 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (finding unexcused absences from a treatment program, standing alone, may constitute…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) E.J. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
See Matos v. State, 956 So.2d 1240, 1240 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (affirming revocation of community control after striking some of the violations but finding other violations were supported by the evidence); Butler v. State, 932 So.2d 306, 307 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (recognizing that when an appellate court reverses on a finding regarding one of the conditions of community control, remand is not required if the remaining violation or violations are substantial); Rawlins v. State, 711 So.2d 137, 137 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (finding unexcused absences from a treatment program, standing alone, may constitute…
cited Cited "see" S.C. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Johnson v. State, 667 So.2d 475 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996).
cited Cited "see" S.C. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Johnson v. State, 667 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996).
cited Cited "see" Mims v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Johnson v. State, 667 So.2d 475 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996).
discussed Cited "see" Palacios v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Johnson v. State, 667 So.2d 475 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); McCloud v. State, 653 So.2d 453 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Anderson v. State, 624 So.2d 362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Griffin v. State, 603 So.2d 48 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Harris v. State, 610 So.2d 36 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); § 784.045(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (1995).
cited Cited "see" Salvatierra v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Johnson v. State, 667 So.2d 475 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Corona v. State, 642 So.2d 667 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Ordonez v. State, 408 So.2d 760 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 419 So.2d 1200 (Fla.1982).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Chanarrow JOHNSON, Appellant,
v.
The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
95-1784.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Jan 31, 1996.
667 So. 2d 475
1996 WL 35225
Barkdull, Nesbitt and Goderich.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, NESBITT and GODERICH, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals from an order finding him guilty of a probation violation and sentencing him on the original substantive counts of burglary and grand theft for a period of six years in a youthful offender facility but allowing him credit for 513 days of time spent in detention. The claim now is that the determination of probation violation was based totally upon hearsay evidence.

There were three violations of the conditions of probation in the instant controversy. We agree with the defendant that there was only hearsay evidence to support the claim that defendant changed his residence without permission and consequently we strike that as a basis for revocation. We agree with the state, however, that there was non-hearsay evidence of defendant's willful and substantial failure to report to his probation officer and defendant's failure to attend G.E.D. classes. Here, the failure of the defendant to have attended G.E.D. classes, standing alone, was sufficient to have imposed revocation of probation. Ordonez v. State, 408 So.2d 760 (Fla. 4th DCA), review denied, 419 So.2d 1200 (Fla. 1982). Clearly, that coupled with his failure to report to his probation officer constitutes sufficient evidence to satisfy the trial court's conclusion that the defendant violated his probation. Corona v. State, 642 So.2d 667 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994).

Consequently, the one violation as to which there was insufficient evidence is stricken. In all other respects, the order is affirmed.