Thomas v. State, 711 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
Thomas v. State, 711 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
27 citation events (23 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Daniel Joseph Quigley v. the State of Florida (fladistctapp, 2025-04-09)
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998 2012 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 21 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Daniel Joseph Quigley v. the State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
See § 90.803(6), Fla. Stat. (2025) (providing that “[r]ecords of regularly conducted business activity” are admissible as evidence even though the declarant is available as a witness, so long as it is established that the acts, events, conditions, opinion, or diagnosis contained therein are “made at or near the time by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge, if kept in the course of a regularly conducted business activity and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make such memorandum, report, record, or data compilation”); § 90.803(7), Fla.…
cited Cited as authority (rule) James Justin Channell v. State of Florida
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
“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)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) M.A.L. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
Thomas v. State, 711 So.2d 96, 97 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Whitehead v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
Russell v. State, 982 So.2d 642, 646 (Fla.2008). “[P]robation can be revoked on the basis of hearsay inadmissible at a criminal trial in combination with evidence admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule.” Wilcox v. State, 770 So.2d 733, 736 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Thomas v. State, 711 So.2d 96, 97 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Reddix v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
Thomas v. State, 711 So.2d 96, 97 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Campbell v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
See Gammon v. State, 778 So. 2d 390, 391-92 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Thomas v. State, 711 So. 2d 96, 97 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stewart v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
See also Dawson v. State, 921 So.2d 763 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Meade v. State, 799 So.2d 430, 433 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Gammon v. State, 778 So.2d 390, 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Thomas v. State, 711 So.2d 96, 97 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Andrews v. State, 693 So.2d 1138, 1141 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).
cited Cited as authority (rule) EP v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
Thomas v. State, 711 So.2d 96, 97 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); see also Snell v. State, 658 So.2d 1165, 1166 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).
cited Cited as authority (rule) E.P. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
Thomas v. State, 711 So.2d 96, 97 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); see also Snell v. State, 658 So.2d 1165, 1166 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).
cited Cited as authority (rule) M.M. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
Thomas v. State, 711 So.2d 96, 97 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Gammon v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
Thomas v. State, 711 So.2d 96, 97 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (citations omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wilcox v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
However, probation can be revoked on the basis of hearsay inadmissible at a criminal trial in combination with evidence admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule, see Thomas v. State, 711 So.2d 96, 97 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
discussed Cited "see" H.J.W. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See Thomas v. State, 711 So.2d 96, 97 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (affirming the trial court’s decision because there was some non-hearsay evidence to support revocation, but remanding for a written order reflecting the reasons for revocation).
discussed Cited "see" Edwards v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gammon v. State, 778 So.2d 390, 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (citing Thomas v. State, 711 So.2d 96, 97 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), for the proposition that hearsay evidence falling within an exception to the hearsay rule may support a revocation of probation).
discussed Cited "see" Ruise v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See Thomas v. State, 711 So.2d 96, 97 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (noting that the question in such proceedings is not whether all of the evidence offered in support of revocation was hearsay, but rather whether there is evidence to support revocation that would have been admissible at a criminal trial).
discussed Cited "see" Seays v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See Thomas v. State, 711 So.2d 96 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (holding that in support of a revocation of probation, state may rely on a mix of inadmissible hearsay evidence together with evidence which is admissible at a criminal trial).
discussed Cited "see" J.F. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lacey v. State, 831 So.2d 1267, 1269 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)(citing Thomas v. State, 711 So.2d 96 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)); see also Wilcox v. State, 770 So.2d 733, 736 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)(holding that probation can be revoked on the basis of hearsay inadmissible at a criminal trial in combination with other admissible evidence).
discussed Cited "see" JF v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Lacey v. State, 831 So.2d 1267, 1269 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)(citing Thomas v. State, 711 So.2d 96 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)); see also Wilcox v. State, 770 So.2d 733, 736 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)(holding that probation can be revoked on the basis of hearsay inadmissible at a criminal trial in combination with other admissible evidence).
discussed Cited "see" Sellers v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Thomas v. State, 711 So.2d 96, 97 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)(probation can be revoked on the basis of hearsay inadmissible at a criminal trial in combination with evidence admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule).
cited Cited "see" Render v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Thomas v. State, 711 So.2d 96, 97 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Hall v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1999 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See e.g., Thomas v. State, 711 So.2d 96 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Miller v. State, 661 So.2d 353 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Corona v. State, 642 So.2d 667 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Mathis v. State, 545 So.2d 483 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).
Larry THOMAS, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
97-2839.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Apr 15, 1998.
711 So. 2d 96
Klein.
Cited by 22 opinions  |  Published

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Gary Caldwell, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Maya Saxena, Assistant Attorney General, Ft. Lauderdale, for appellee.

KLEIN, Judge.

The appellant contends that the trial court erred in revoking his probation because all of the evidence on which the revocation was based was hearsay. We affirm.

[*97] Appellant's community control officer testified as to what three witnesses, who were not present at the revocation hearing, told him. This was, of course, hearsay as is defined by section 90.801(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1995). The officer also testified, however, as to what the appellant told him by way of explanation as to why he was not where he was supposed to be under the terms of his probation. That testimony, although generally defined as hearsay, would be admissible in evidence at a criminal trial as an exception to the hearsay rule because it is an admission by a party under section 90.803(18), Florida Statutes (1995).

Although probation cannot be revoked based only on hearsay evidence which would be inadmissible at a criminal trial,[1] revocation can be grounded on a combination of that type of evidence and evidence which is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. McPherson v. State, 530 So.2d 1095 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (court could revoke probation based on hearsay inadmissible at a trial combined with appellant's statement to probation officer). The question is not, as appellant seems to believe, whether all of the evidence is generally defined as hearsay, but rather whether there is some evidence to support revocation which would be admissible at a criminal trial. Because the officer's testimony as to appellant's excuse (which conflicted with appellant's testimony at the hearing) would have been admissible at a trial, there was sufficient evidence to revoke.

We do agree with appellant that he was entitled to a written statement by the trial court reflecting the reasons for the revocation. We therefore affirm the revocation but remand for the written order. Mitchell v. State, 681 So.2d 891 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

STONE, C.J., and GROSS, J., concur.

1 Durden v. State, 577 So.2d 640 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Vezina v. State, 644 So.2d 602 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Purvis v. State, 420 So.2d 389 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).