BALDWIN v. STATE (2019)

Tevin Baldwin appeals from the judgments and sentences imposed after the trial court found that he violated several conditions of his probation. We reject Baldwin's argument that there was insufficient evidence to establish that he violated condition five of his probation by committing three new drug-related offenses. But Baldwin correctly asserts that the State failed to establish the remaining violations with evidence other than hearsay. See Rodgers v. State, 171 So. 3d 236, 238 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (hearsay evidence is admissible in violation of probation hearings, but hearsay evidence that is not corroborated by non-hearsay evidence is insufficient to establish a violation of probation). We nonetheless affirm the revocation of Baldwin's probation and the resulting sentences because it is clear from the record that the trial court would have made the same decision based solely on its finding that Baldwin committed three new law violations.

We note that the revocation order does not conform to the trial court's oral pronouncement that Baldwin violated condition five of his probation on three occasions. We therefore remand this matter to the trial court with directions to enter a corrected revocation order that conforms to the oral pronouncement on condition five and omits the findings that Baldwin violated the other conditions of probation.

Affirmed and Remanded with instructions.

Per Curiam.

Roberts, Ray, and Winsor, JJ., concur.