STRATTON v. STATE (2020)

Anthony William Stratton appeals the judgment and sentence imposed after the lower court found him guilty of violating his probation.¹ Because we find that the State failed to provide sufficient proof of the charged violation, we reverse.

The State alleged that Stratton violated condition 3 of his probation, which required that he procure consent of his probation officer prior to changing his residence.² The evidence at the violation of probation hearing, in the light most favorable to the State, was that a probation officer was assigned to supervise Stratton, but the two had never met. The probation officer made an unannounced visit to the address that Stratton had listed as his residence. Upon arriving at the residence, the probation officer met Stratton's father, who told the probation officer that he had not seen Stratton in three weeks. Based on Stratton's father's statement, the probation officer concluded that Stratton had moved residences without procuring consent.

The probation officer did not ask Stratton's father whether Stratton lived at the residence or whether he had moved. The probation officer was unaware that Stratton did not live in the house with his father; instead, he resided in a trailer on his father's property. Stratton's father testified that other probation officers had previously visited the trailer and approved it as Stratton's residence.

At a violation of probation hearing, the State has the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant willfully and substantially violated a condition of his probation. Knight v. State, 187 So. 3d 307, 309 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). We find that given the fact that Stratton did not live in his father's house, Stratton's father's statement that he had not seen his son in three weeks was not competent, substantial evidence that Stratton changed his residence without consent. Because the State failed to carry its burden to prove Stratton willfully and substantially violated condition 3, we reverse the lower court's order revoking Stratton's probation.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Stratton's underlying conviction was for grand theft. § 812.014(1), (2)(c), Fla. Stat. (2016).

2.   Stratton was also charged with violating his probation by using intoxicants to excess or possessing any drugs or narcotics not prescribed by a physician. The lower court found that the State failed to meet its burden of proof on that allegation.

COHEN, J.

WALLIS and TRAVER, JJ., concur.