HALLMAN v. STATE (2019)

Appellant, Brian A. Hallman, appeals four revocation orders in which the trial court found that he violated probation by committing the new law offense of dealing in stolen property.^* Appellant argues, and the State concedes, that the revocation was improperly based solely on hearsay evidence. Because we agree with Appellant and accept the State's concession, we reverse Appellant's revocation and remand with instructions that his probation be reinstated. See Melton v. State, 65 So. 3d 96, 97 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (“While hearsay is admissible at a probation revocation hearing, a revocation of probation may not be based solely upon hearsay evidence, and where the state seeks to revoke probation based on a violation ․ by the commission of a new offense, it is required to present direct, non-hearsay evidence linking the defendant to the commission of the offense.”); see also Johnson v. State, 962 So. 2d 394, 397-98 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (reversing a revocation order where the only evidence linking the appellant to the stolen items was hearsay); J.F. v. State, 889 So. 2d 130, 131 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (reversing the revocation order where the only proof of possession of the stolen property by the appellant was based upon hearsay).

Reversed and Remanded with directions.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.   We have consolidated Appellant's four appeals for purposes of this opinion.

Per Curiam.

Lewis, Makar, and Bilbrey, JJ., concur.