Eveland v. State
189 So. 3d 990
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Appellant Darroll Eveland, Jr. pleaded guilty to aggravated battery with great bodily harm and was sentenced to two years' community control and five years' probation.
- The State filed a violation affidavit based on multiple "bracelet gone" alerts from Eveland's electronic monitoring device.
- Eveland's community control officer testified alerts occurred but that Eveland responded within minutes by pressing an in-home device; the State submitted a DVD of monitoring records.
- Eveland testified he was at home during the alerts, had previously experienced repeated equipment problems, and the device had been replaced multiple times.
- The trial court found willful and substantial violations, revoked community control, and imposed a three-year prison sentence.
- The Second District reversed, concluding the State relied solely on hearsay monitoring records that were not properly authenticated and that no competent evidence showed willful or substantial violations.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Eveland's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility/authentication of electronic monitoring records | Records are business records; State filed notice of intent and Eveland failed to timely object | Records were hearsay; notice did not satisfy statutory certification/declaration requirements | Records were inadmissible hearsay because the State failed to file a proper certification/declaration or otherwise lay a business-records predicate |
| Sufficiency to prove willful and substantial violation of community control | Alerts from monitoring equipment established confinement violations warranting revocation | Alerts reflected equipment faults or benign activity on appellant's property; Eveland promptly responded to alerts | No competent substantial evidence of willful or substantial violation; equipment problems and prompt responses undercut willfulness |
| Reliance on probation officer testimony to authenticate third-party records | Probation officer authenticated monitoring company records | Authentication insufficient without custodian, certification, stipulation, or declaration | Officer testimony alone did not suffice to authenticate business records for revocation decisions |
| Remedy after improper revocation | Revocation and prison sentence appropriate based on alleged violations | Reverse revocation; reinstate probation because community control completed and revocation unsupported | Reversed revocation and prison sentence; remanded to vacate prison sentence and reinstate probation |
Key Cases Cited
- Correa v. State, 43 So. 3d 738 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (standard for revocation and discussion of equipment-related false alerts)
- Edwards v. State, 60 So. 3d 529 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (hearsay may be admissible at revocation hearings but cannot be the sole basis for revocation)
- Gammon v. State, 778 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (probation officer testimony insufficient to authenticate monitoring company business records)
- Yisrael v. State, 993 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 2008) (requirements for certification/declaration to establish business-records foundation)
- Allen v. State, 162 So. 3d 1055 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (party must give reasonable notice when relying on certification/declaration for business records)
- Jackson v. State, 785 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (noncompliance that occurs on the premises or during approved activity may not constitute a violation)