MILLER v. STATE (2021)

Dalton Ray Miller appeals his judgment and sentence imposed after the trial court revoked his probation. Miller admitted to four counts of violating his probation. But he denied that he violated probation based on two new criminal charges. The trial court accepted Miller's plea to the four admitted counts. And after a hearing, the trial court found that Miller violated probation as to both of the new law offenses.

Miller argues that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his probation, asserting that the State did not meet its burden to prove that Miller violated probation by committing the two new law offenses. We disagree and find no error by the trial court. The State met its burden to prove that Miller violated his probation by committing the two new law offenses through evidence consisting of both hearsay and non-hearsay evidence. See Russell v. State, 982 So. 2d 642, 648 (Fla. 2008) (upholding revocation of probation because along with the victim's hearsay statement, the trial court also considered non-hearsay evidence, including direct testimony of an observation of the victim's injury); 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.”).

Affirmed.

Per Curiam.

Rowe, M.K. Thomas, and Nordby, JJ., concur.