Skip to main content

Exit WCAG Theme

Switch to Non-ADA Website

Accessibility Options

Select Text Sizes

Select Text Color

Website Accessibility Information Close Options
Close Menu

Can A Judge Revoke My Probation Based On Secondhand Information?


Many Florida criminal sentences include a term of probation. This means the defendant is not in prison but they can only remain free if they abide by certain conditions set by the court. If a law enforcement officer has reason to believe a defendant is not meeting their obligations, they can file an affidavit with the court, which is then required to hold a hearing. If the defendant admits the violation–or the prosecution can prove the violation by a “preponderance of the evidence”–the judge may then revoke, modify, or continue probation.

Although the government’s burden of proof is lower for proving a probation violation than the original criminal charge, there must still be some reliable and admissible evidence. For example, the prosecution cannot exclusively rely on hearsay–i.e., “We heard from someone else that the defendant might have violated his probation.”

The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeals recently confronted just such a scenario. The defendant in this case previously pleaded guilty to a charge of manslaughter. After serving more than 9 years in prison he was required to serve an additional 3 years on probation. Several months into this probationary period, however, the defendant’s probation officer filed an affidavit alleging two probation violations.

Both alleged violations related to requirements that the defendant report his address or any change of residence to the probation officer. In the affidavit, the probation officer here said that he went to the address reported by the defendant. An “unidentified individual” told the officer that the defendant “had stayed at that location for a few days but had been in Daytona for the past several weeks.” The probation officer apparently made no further inquiries.

Before the trial court, the defendant explained that he was living at the address he reported, but the property was a duplex containing an upstairs and downstairs unit. The defendant lived downstairs and the man the officer spoke to was apparently the upstairs tenant, with whom the defendant rarely interacted. The judge apparently did not accept this explanation, revoked the defendant’s probation, and sentenced him to 11 additional years in prison.

On appeal, the Fifth District reversed. It held that the state’s entire case rested on hearsay–that is, what the unidentified man told the officer. Indeed, the prosecution never bothered to actually establish this man’s identity or call him as a witness. Nor did the police officer bother to verify the information the unidentified man provided before jumping to the conclusion that the defendant violated his probation. Under the circumstances, the Fifth District said it was improper to revoke the defendant’s probation based entirely on hearsay.

Contact Orlando Criminal Defense Attorney Jose Baez Today

A criminal conviction often carries long-term consequences that last beyond prison time. That is why it is imperative to work with an experienced Orlando criminal defense attorney who can aggressively represent your interests in court. Contact the Baez Law Firm today to schedule a free consultation today.


By submitting this form I acknowledge that form submissions via this website do not create an attorney-client relationship, and any information I send is not protected by attorney-client privilege.

DISCLAIMER: This website contains information about The Baez Law Firm that includes testimonial statements from persons who are familiar with the firm's services. The testimonials shown are not necessarily representative of every person's experience with us. Testimonials from every client are not provided. As no two situations or persons are identical, the facts and circumstances of your situation may differ from those for which testimonials are shown. This website also includes information about some of the past results that we have obtained for our clients. Not all results are provided, and the results shown are not necessarily representative of all results obtained by us. No two situation are exactly alike; every person's situation is unique and the outcome for each person depends on the individual facts.

The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.

Skip footer and go back to main navigation