violation of probation hearing in Florida

2026"While hearsay that is normally inadmissible in a criminal trial may be admitted in [violation of probation] proceedings, it may not constitute the sole basis for finding a violation of probation." D.D. v. State, 271 So. 3d 1176 , 1177 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (alteration in original) (quoting M.A.L. v. State, 110 So. 3d 493, 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)); see also Gaddy v. State, 23 So. 3d 1258, 1259 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) ("A trial court may consider hearsay testimony at a violation of probation hearing.

2010See Gaddy, 23 So.3d at 1259 (“A trial court may consider hearsay testimony at a violation of probation hearing.

2018See Davis v. State, 831 So. 2d 792, 793 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).

2018See Davis v. State, 831 So. 2d 792, 793 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).

2004See Lambert v. State, 811 So.2d 805, 807 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).

2004See Lambert v. State, 811 So.2d 805, 807 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).

2026See § 985.439(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2023); see also K.L.T. v. State, 65 So. 3d 102, 103 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (“[T]he trial court had no jurisdiction to conduct a violation of probation hearing after Petitioner’s probationary term had expired . . . .”).

2012Id. at 103 .

2026We affirm the trial court’s order revoking 1 Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975). probation but reverse and remand for a new sentencing with a renewed offer of counsel, and in doing so, we certify conflict with the Fifth District’s decision in Harris v. State, 687 So. 2d 29, 30 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).

2026"While hearsay that is normally inadmissible in a criminal trial may be admitted in [violation of probation] proceedings, it may not constitute the sole basis for finding a violation of probation." D.D. v. State, 271 So. 3d 1176 , 1177 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (alteration in original) (quoting M.A.L. v. State, 110 So. 3d 493, 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)); see also Gaddy v. State, 23 So. 3d 1258, 1259 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) ("A trial court may consider hearsay testimony at a violation of probation hearing.

2024Stevens v. State, 823 So. 2d 319, 321 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).

2020The trial court’s oral ruling and written order reflect that the court based its decision only on the parties’ stipulation to the report. “[A] court cannot find competency based on the parties’ stipulation alone.” McCray v. State, 265 So. 3d 659, 662 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019).

2018United States v. Knight, 604 F. App’x 886, 887, 889 (2015) (noting that Appellant “waived his right to an initial revocation hearing and admitted the violations as charged in the amended petition;” and observing “Knight admitted using cocaine on multiple occasions and committing two crimes, including attempting to murder his former girlfriend with a steel pipe.”); Report & Recommendation, Knight v. United States, Nos. 15- 00528-CG-M, 07-00242-CG-M, 2016 WL 1096972 , at *2 (S.D.

2017See Grosvenor v. State, 874 So. 2d 1176, 1181 (Fla. 2004) (establishing two-pronged test for assessing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel relating to guilty pleas: the first prong is identical to the deficient performance prong in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984); the second prong requires that the defendant demonstrate “a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the defendant would not have pleaded guilty and would have insisted on going to trial”).

2016The State’s burden of proving both elements is typically beyond a reasonable doubt; however, Martoral v. State, 946 So.2d 1240, 1243 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007), involved a violation of probation hearing in which the state failed to meet its burden, which was only the preponderance or greater weight of the evidence.

2015See, e.g,, United States v. Bell, 785 F.2d 640, 643 (8th Cir. 1986) (“The urinalysis laboratory reports bear substantial indicia of reliability.

2015See, e.g., McDoughall v, State, 133 So.3d 1097, 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).

2012“The underlying concept of probation is rehabilitation rather than punishment.” Lawson v. State, 969 So.2d 222, 229 (Fla.2007) (quoting Bernhardt v. State, 288 So.2d 490, 495 (Fla.1974)).

2012See, e.g., Russ v. State, 313 So.2d 758 (Fla.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 924 , 96 S.Ct. 267 , 46 L.Ed.2d 250 (1975).

2012“The underlying concept of probation is rehabilitation rather than punishment.” Lawson v. State, 969 So.2d 222, 229 (Fla.2007) (quoting Bernhardt v. State, 288 So.2d 490, 495 (Fla.1974)).

2012See, e.g., Russ v. State, 313 So.2d 758 (Fla.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 924 , 96 S.Ct. 267 , 46 L.Ed.2d 250 (1975).

2012See, e.g., Russ v. State, 313 So.2d 758 (Fla.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 924 , 96 S.Ct. 267 , 46 L.Ed.2d 250 (1975).

2011See id.; see also Sears, 889 So.2d at 959-60 (determining that the trial judge crossed the line of neutrality when it asked the victim forty questions and asked Sears twenty-two questions, although he was not placed under oath, at a violation of probation hearing).

2009See Robinson v. State, 744 So.2d 1188, 1189 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).