M.A.L. v. State
110 So. 3d 493
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Juvenile M.A.L., sixteen, pled no contest to fraudulent use of a credit card; adjudication was withheld and probation imposed with special conditions.
- Mandatory probation conditions required academics, living with a guardian, abstaining from alcohol/controlled substances, and obeying laws.
- About ten months later, State filed a Violation of Probation alleging multiple noncompliance and drug use
- DJJ prepared a predisposition/report and evaluation indicating marijuana use, and recommended a level 6 moderate risk residential program followed by conditional release
- Probation revocation hearing addressed counts two, three, and four; hearsay evidence related to a positive marijuana test was admitted over objection
- Disposition occurred after a sidebar discussion outside the juvenile and her father’s presence; no comments from them were solicited before the disposition was announced and the juvenile was adjudicated and committed
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the disposition hearing conducted with due process error? | M.A.L. argues sidebar hearing outside presence denied opportunity to be heard | State contends issue not preserved but argues harmless error | Fundamental error; must reverse and remand for comment opportunities |
| Can a probation violation be proven by hearsay alone? | Violation based solely on probation officer’s hearay testimony | DJJ admission in PDR supports the finding via hearsay exception | Hearsay cannot support revocation alone; error and remand to reconsider based on remaining admissible evidence |
| Was there a proper written order detailing the violated probation conditions? | No written order specifying violated conditions | Written order not required or already implicit | Remand to enter a written order identifying the specific violated conditions |
Key Cases Cited
- J.B. v. State, 84 So.3d 401 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (remand when evidence supports only some violations)
- Davis v. State, 33 So.3d 747 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (restricts revocation based on contested evidence)
- Sagner v. State, 776 So.2d 1088 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (probation revocation cannot stand on hearsay alone)
- Ubiles v. State, 23 So.3d 1288 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (abuse of discretion standard in probation violation)
- Nawaz v. State, 28 So.3d 122 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (sentencing error analysis and preservation rules)
- R.R. v. Portesy, 629 So.2d 1059 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (presence right at juvenile hearings)
- A.T.J.F. v. State, 78 So.3d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (requirement of written order for probation revocation)
- King v. State, 46 So.3d 1171 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (disposition hearing procedures in juvenile cases)
- Robinson v. State, 74 So.3d 570 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (written order detailing probation violations)
- A.P. v. State, 666 So.2d 211 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (due process in juvenile proceedings)