T.J. v. State

Full title: T.J., a child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Date published: Jan 28, 2015

162 So. 3d 158 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

Opinion

No. 4D13–1282.

01-28-2015

T.J., a child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Ellen Griffin, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Mark J. Hamel, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

STEVENSON, J.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Ellen Griffin, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Mark J. Hamel, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Opinion

STEVENSON, J.

In this appeal, the minor defendant challenges an order finding him guilty of numerous violations of probation, including the commission of numerous substantive criminal offenses, and the resulting revocation of his probation and commitment to a level 6 facility. While defendant raises a number of issues, we affirm the trial court's order in its entirety, save the finding that defendant violated probation by committing the crime of criminal mischief.

Since all the evidence purportedly establishing defendant as the culprit who threw a rock through the window of a Walgreens store was hearsay, we reverse this finding. See § 806.13(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2012) (defining offense of criminal mischief); Russell v. State, 982 So.2d 642, 646 (Fla.2008) (recognizing hearsay is admissible in violation of probation proceedings, but hearsay alone may not form the sole basis for revocation). The trial court's order is affirmed in all other respects, including the findings that defendant violated his probation by failing to complete community service hours and committing petit theft, grand theft and burglary. See McKenzie v. State, ––– So.3d –––– (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (recognizing reversal of one of many violations does not require reversal of order of revocation or sentence, where, based upon the record, appellate court is confident the trial court would have revoked probation and imposed the same sentence).

Reversed in part and Affirmed in part.

CIKLIN and GERBER, JJ., concur.