S.M. v. State, 138 So. 3d 1156

Juvenile was adjudicated by plea to burglary-related offenses; court withheld adjudication and placed her on probation under grandmother custody and CareSource as legal guardian.
Two separate petitions for violation of probation (VOP) were filed: first alleged failure to report within 24 hours and leaving approved residence; second alleged leaving approved residence for three months and absconding.
At the VOP hearing the court took judicial notice of the court file; the State’s sole witness was the juvenile probation officer (JPO), who testified largely from information received by phone (grandmother, CareSource, school) and admitted she did not personally search the juvenile’s home or school.
The court found five violations (including three not alleged in the petition: never reporting to JPO, failing to attend school, history of absconding) and ordered a predisposition report and evaluation.
At disposition, the court briefly excluded the juvenile from the courtroom to consult with grandmother/guardian, therapist, JPO, and counsel; the juvenile did not personally waive presence and was not given an opportunity to comment before disposition was announced.
The juvenile appealed, arguing (1) court relied on unpled allegations in revoking probation, (2) revocation rested on hearsay, and (3) juvenile was excluded from part of disposition without a personal waiver; the appellate court reversed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether revocation based on violations not alleged in petition violated due process	Juvenile: court relied on five violations though petition alleged only two, violating right to be judged only on alleged violations	State: findings supported by competent substantial evidence from file and JPO testimony	Reversed: court may not revoke based on unpled violations; remand required (fundamental error)
Whether revocation was supported by sufficient competent evidence (hearsay issue)	Juvenile: State’s case rested on hearsay from JPO and judicial notice; hearsay alone insufficient	State: hearsay plus judicial notice and JPO testimony sufficed; defense failed to preserve error	Reversed: revocation cannot be based on hearsay alone; State failed to present non-hearsay proof of alleged violations
Whether excluding juvenile from part of disposition without personal waiver violated right to be present	Juvenile: exclusion denied constitutional/right-to-be-present protections and right to comment on disposition	State: Rule 8.100(e) inapplicable; counsel waived presence; juvenile didn’t request to speak	Reversed: juvenile must be personally present at critical stages; court committed fundamental error by excluding juvenile without personal waiver

Taylor v. State, 949 So.2d 345 (discretion standard for probation revocation)
Shepard v. State, 939 So.2d 311 (proof standard for revocation: deliberate, willful, substantial violation)
Blackshear v. State, 771 So.2d 1199 (same revocation standard authority)
Davis v. State, 891 So.2d 1186 (revocation must be based on violations alleged and presented)
Nagel v. State, 758 So.2d 1206 (due process as fundamental error in revocation proceedings)
B.E. v. State, 115 So.3d 1088 (reversal/remand where court found unpled violations)
McNealy v. State, 479 So.2d 138 (hearsay admissible but insufficient alone to revoke probation)
Josephs v. State, 86 So.3d 1270 (de novo review on right-to-be-present issues)
Croom v. State, 36 So.3d 707 (same)
J.R. v. State, 953 So.2d 690 (juvenile right to be present at critical stages)
R.R. v. Portesy, 629 So.2d 1059 (personal waiver required for juvenile absence)
M.A.L. v. State, 110 So.3d 493 (juvenile’s presence waiver must be personal; limited sidebar exceptions)
T.A.S. v. State, 892 So.2d 1233 (presence at stages where fairness might be thwarted is constitutional right)
Papageorge v. State, 710 So.2d 53 (same principle regarding presence)