Faulk v. State, 743 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). · Go Syfert
Faulk v. State, 743 So. 2d 1183 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“the record does not demonstrate good cause to avoid the time limits of the rule; . . . there was no reason offered, by proffer or otherwise, why the search could not have been conducted within the time limits of the rule.”
2 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Kayle B. Bates v. State of Florida (fla, 2024-10-24)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer.
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Kayle B. Bates v. State of Florida
Fla. · 2024 · signal: cf. · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
the record does not demonstrate good cause to avoid the time limits of the rule; . . . there was no reason offered, by proffer or otherwise, why the search could not have been conducted within the time limits of the rule.
Harold L. FAULK
v.
STATE of Florida
No. 99-78.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Oct 27, 1999.
743 So. 2d 1183
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender; David A Davis, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant., Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General; Giselle Lylen Rivera, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for appellee.
Benton, Joanos, Wolf.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges a final order of violation of probation. We have determined that the said order must be reversed.

The trial court found that appellant willfully and substantially violated only one condition of his probation, that appellant failed to complete the psycho-sexual treatment course which had been required. Hearsay is admissible in violation of probation hearings, but may not form the only evidentiary support for the alleged violation. See Andrews v. State, 693 So.2d 1138 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Johnson v. State, 695 So.2d 749 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). In the instant case, the record demonstrates clearly that the termination of treatment report is the only basis upon which the trial court determined that the appellant willfully violated his probation. There is no other evidence in the record to support a finding of violation. We, therefore, reverse.

JOANOS, WOLF and BENTON, JJ„ concur.