Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 Florida opinions name it 1 courts 1991–2025 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Ruise v. Stategreen2 sentences2019See Ruise v. State , 43 So.3d 885 , 886-87 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) ("Hearsay is admissible in a probation or community control violation proceeding, but probation or community control may not be revoked solely on the basis of hearsay evidence. 2019See Ruise v. State , 43 So.3d 885 , 886-87 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) ("Hearsay is admissible in a probation or community control violation proceeding, but probation or community control may not be revoked solely on the basis of hearsay evidence. | 4 | 4 |
Special Disability Trust Fund v. MIAMI AIRPORT HILTONgreen2 sentences2016It is axiomatic that “[hjearsay is admissible in a probation or community control violation proceeding, but probation or community control may not be revoked solely on the basis of hearsay evidence.” Ruise v. State, 43 So.3d 885, 886-87 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (citing Smith-Curles v. State, 24 So.3d 702, 702-03 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)). 2016“Revocation may, however, be based solely upon hearsay evidence that *249 falls within an exception to the hearsay rule.” Id. at 887 (citing Thomas v. State, 711 So.2d 96, 97 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)). | 2 | 2 |
Columbus Williams v. State of Floridagreen1 sentence2025See State v. Smith, 982 So. 2d 756, 758 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (recognizing intellectual disability and autism are typically lifelong conditions less amenable to treatment than mental illness, which explains the shorter time period that “must elapse” before charges are dismissed for these defendants); Williams v. State, 256 So. 3d 954, 957 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (recognizing two years is the outer limit of time for dismissing charges and the reasonableness of time is in consideration of the prospects of restoring the defendant’s competency); Tillman, 345 So. 3d at 313 (reversing orders of dismissal | 1 | 1 |
State v. Smithgreen1 sentence2025See State v. Smith, 982 So. 2d 756, 758 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (recognizing intellectual disability and autism are typically lifelong conditions less amenable to treatment than mental illness, which explains the shorter time period that “must elapse” before charges are dismissed for these defendants); Williams v. State, 256 So. 3d 954, 957 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (recognizing two years is the outer limit of time for dismissing charges and the reasonableness of time is in consideration of the prospects of restoring the defendant’s competency); Tillman, 345 So. 3d at 313 (reversing orders of dismissal | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rincongreen1 sentence2022See § 948.06(8)(d) (providing that if the probationer qualifies as a violent felony offender of special concern, the trial court “shall not dismiss the probation or community control violation warrant pending against an offender enumerated in this paragraph without holding a recorded violation-of-probation hearing at which both the state and the offender are represented.”) 5 In State v. Rincon, 273 So. 3d 1101, 1102-03 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019), on virtually identical facts, this court reversed the trial court’s sua sponte order which, without first conducting a probation violation hearing, dismissed | 1 | 1 |
Linville v. Stategreen1 sentence2019Subsection (8)(e) further provides that, if, after the trial court conducts this evidentiary hearing, the trial court determines the violent felony offender of special concern has violated probation,2 the trial court must make a series of written findings as to whether the offender poses a danger to the community. § 948.06(8)(e)1., Fla. Stat. (2018); see Barber v. State, 207 So. 3d 379, 384 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). | 1 | 1 |
Thomas v. Stategreen1 sentence2016“Revocation may, however, be based solely upon hearsay evidence that *249 falls within an exception to the hearsay rule.” Id. at 887 (citing Thomas v. State, 711 So.2d 96, 97 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ricciardelli v. State
green
1 sentence2021Id. (emphases added). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Hightower v. State
green
1 sentence1996Hightower v. State, 529 So.2d 726 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Hendrix v. State
green
2 sentences1991First, where the defendant is sentenced simultaneously for both the original and the new offense, it would violate the court's holding in Hendrix v. State, 475 So.2d 1218 (Fla. 1985), "that departure may not be based upon factors already weighed in arriving at the presumptive sentence." Ibid. 1991First, where the defendant is sentenced simultaneously for both the original and the new offense, it would violate the court's holding in Hendrix v. State, 475 So.2d 1218 (Fla. 1985), "that departure may not be based upon factors already weighed in arriving at the presumptive sentence." Ibid. | 1 | 1991–1991 |