Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

351 So. 2d 1103

Docket No. 76-1984.

Combs v. State

Larry COMBS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided November 9, 1977.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1977-11-09

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“The rule requiring more than hearsay to establish a violation of probation requires other evidence of the defendant's misconduct, not just other evidence.”

quoted by 4 later decisions, including YERRICK v. State, 464 So. 2d 670 - McCrary v. State

Relies on 305 So. 2d 309 - Brown v. State · 351 So. 2d 1053 - Demchak v. State · 318 So. 2d 472 - Robbins v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1977-11-09

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently August 2015 · most notably 642 So. 2d 1141 - Kiess v. State (1994), 537 So. 2d 180 - Brown v. State (1989)

31 state decisions

13019771980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, Frank B. Kessler, Chief, Appellate Division, and James K. Green, Legal Intern, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

¶2Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Paul H. Zacks, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

¶3LETTS, Judge.

¶4This is an appeal from an order revoking probation. The appellant, Larry Combs, was charged with violating his probation by participating in a burglary. Combs argues and the State concedes that the only evidence of Combs' participation in the burglary was hearsay testimony by a police officer that another participant in the burglary had implicated Combs. There was no other evidence connecting Combs to the burglary.

¶5While hearsay evidence is admissible in probation revocation proceedings, a defendant's probation cannot be revoked solely on the basis of hearsay evidence. Demchak v. State,351 So.2d 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA opinion filed April 7, 1977); Robbins v. State,318 So.2d 472 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Brown v. State,305 So.2d 309 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974).

¶6The State attempts to avoid this rule by pointing out that other evidence was offered at the hearing concerning the burglary. But none of this evidence in any way connected Combs to the burglary. The rule requiring more than hearsay to establish a violation of probation requires other evidence of the defendant's misconduct, not just other evidence.

¶7Since the only evidence that was offered to prove Combs violated his probation was the hearsay testimony of the police officer, the order revoking probation should be reversed.

¶8REVERSED.

¶9CROSS and ANSTEAD, JJ., concur.

/351/so2d/1103 · .json · Public domain