Case Name: Conrad P. ARNDT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2002-03-28
Citations: 815 So. 2d 674
Docket Number: No. 5D01-2373
Parties: Conrad P. ARNDT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: SHARP, W., J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 815
Pages: 674–676

Head Matter:
Conrad P. ARNDT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 5D01-2373.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
March 28, 2002.
Rehearing Denied May 8, 2002.
James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Kevin R. Holtz, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Tammy L. Jaques, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

Opinion:
PALMER, J.
In this belated appeal Conrad Arndt challenges the trial court's revocation of his probation. We affirm.
Arndt was sentenced to a two year probation term after having pled guilty to a drug charge. One week into his probation, the State filed a petition charging Arndt with violating his probation by committing the new substantive offense of battery. At the violation of probation hearing, Richard Silva, an Osceola County Sheriffs Deputy, testified that he was the officer directed to respond to a report of criminal activity. Upon arriving at the scene, Silva encountered the victim. The victim told Silva she had argued with Arndt, and reported that Arndt had slapped her across her face. Silva testified that he observed redness on the side of the victim's face and her ear. According to Silva, when he approached Arndt, Arndt refused to speak with him and was visibly upset. Based on this testimony, the trial court adjudicated Arndt guilty of violating his probation.
Arndt contends that the trial court erred when it revoked his probation based on Deputy Silva's hearsay testimony and "scant other evidence". We disagree and conclude that, in revoking Arndt's probation, the trial court properly relied on Young v. State, 742 So.2d 418 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), rev. denied, 751 So.2d 1255 (Fla.2000).
In Young, the defendant contended that the trial court improperly adjudicated him guilty of violating his probation based solely upon hearsay evidence submitted by an investigating police officer. This court affirmed the revocation of probation explaining that the officer's testimony contained both hearsay and direct evidence of guilt:
[T]he hearsay testimony was supported by the officer's description of the distraught appearance of the victim when the officer responded to a 911 call; the officer described the physical appearance of the victim's wounds to her arm and mouth; and photographs of the victim's wounds were introduced into evidence.
Young, 742 So.2d at 419.
As in Young, here the State submitted direct evidence which corroborated the hearsay evidence including Silva's eyewitness testimony concerning the physical appearance of the victim. Although hearsay evidence alone is insufficient to support a revocation of probation, here Silva's hearsay testimony was coupled with his eyewitness testimony concerning the victim's reddened face and ear and a description of Arndt's appearance. The lack of a photograph of the victim's reddened face and ear does not render the evidence insufficient.
Contrary to Arndt's contention, the case of Bales v. State, 793 So.2d 87 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) does not dictate a different result. Although a witness in that case testified to seeing redness on the elbow of the victim, the trial court did not utilize that evidence in reaching the conclusion that the evidence of a probation violation was insufficient. As the Second District noted: "Here, the court grounded its finding on the officer's description of [the victim's] statements at the hospital. Standing alone, this pure hearsay was insufficient."
AFFIRMED.
SHARP, W., J., concurs.
THOMPSON, C.J., dissents with opinion.
. See Arndt v. State, 790 So.2d 603 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).
. This court must review the trial court's probation revocation decision for abuse of discretion. Steiner v. State, 604 So.2d 1265, 1267 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).