JB v. State, 84 So. 3d 401 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). · Go Syfert
Search
JB v. State, 84 So. 3d 401 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“accordingly, we remand for the trial court to reconsider whether it would have imposed the same sentence if faced with only the supported violation.”
7 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) B.E. v. State (2×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2013 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
accordingly, we remand for the trial court to reconsider whether it would have imposed the same sentence if faced with only the supported violation.
cited Cited "see" A.E., A CHILD v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See J.B. v. State, 84 So. 3d 401, 402 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).
discussed Cited "see" M.A.L. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See J.B. v. State, 84 So.3d 401, 402 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (holding that trial court’s finding that defendant violated a condition of probation was improperly based solely on hearsay evidence and remanding for the trial court to reconsider whether it would have imposed the same sentence if faced with only the remaining, supported violation); Davis v. State, 33 So.3d 747, 748-49 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (holding that the evidence was insufficient to establish defendant violated one of the terms of his probation and remanding for the trial court to reconsider whether it would have still revoked his p…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Warner v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See also J.B. v. State, 84 So.3d 401, 402 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (concluding that because the probation officer did not supervise the appellant during the period of the alleged violation, his testimony was based only on a review of the appellant’s file and the “state was required to move [the] records into evidence under the business records exception to the hearsay rule to substantiate the alleged violations”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
J.B., a child, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
4D10-3029.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Mar 28, 2012.
84 So. 3d 401
Per Curiam.
Published

[*402] Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Travis Dunnington, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Mark J. Hamel, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, J.B., appeals the revocation of his probation for committing the new offense of burglary of an unoccupied dwelling and for failing to complete required community service hours. We find no merit in appellant's contention that the finding of a violation of probation for the burglary was based solely on hearsay. See generally Robinson v. State, 74 So.3d 570, 571-72 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (holding violation of probation sufficiently based on a combination of hearsay and non-hearsay evidence).

We, however, reverse the trial court's finding of a violation of probation based on appellant's failure to complete the required community service hours. Appellant's probation officer began supervising appellant in February 2010. The officer testified that, prior to February 2010, appellant had not completed the required minimum of ten hours per month. Since the officer did not supervise appellant during the period of the alleged violation, his testimony was based only on his review of appellant's file. The state was required to move these records into evidence under the business records exception to the hearsay rule to substantiate the alleged violations. See M.M. v. State, 839 So.2d 881, 882 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Bertoloti v. State, 831 So.2d 1281, 1281-82 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). "As it stands, Appellant's probation was revoked solely on the basis of hearsay." Bertoloti, 831 So.2d at 1282.

Accordingly, we remand for the trial court to reconsider whether it would have imposed the same sentence if faced with only the supported violation. See Whitehead v. State, 22 So.3d 846, 849 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009); Brown v. State, 12 So.3d 877, 879-80 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).

Affirmed in part, Reversed in part, and Remanded.

CIKLIN, GERBER and LEVINE, JJ., concur.