Case Name: Alexis RECIO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1992-09-22
Citations: 605 So. 2d 553
Docket Number: No. 92-398
Parties: Alexis RECIO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before FERGUSON, JORGENSON and COPE, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 605
Pages: 553–556

Head Matter:
Alexis RECIO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
No. 92-398.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Sept. 22, 1992.
Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Marti Rothenberg, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Richard L. Polin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.
Before FERGUSON, JORGENSON and COPE, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Alexis Recio (defendant) appeals from a final order revoking his probation. We affirm.
Defendant was adjudicated guilty and placed on six months probation for third degree grand theft and uttering a forged instrument. Five months later, defendant's correctional probation officer filed an affidavit of violation of probation. The affidavit alleged that the defendant violated the terms and conditions of his probation by failing to remain at liberty without violating any law in that he committed the offense of sale of cocaine, by failing to make monthly payments to the State, by failing to make restitution, and by failing to report to his probation supervisor. The defendant denied that he had violated his probation.
A jury trial was held on the sale-of-cocaine charge. The parties agreed that the trial would also serve as defendant's probation violation hearing.
The State's key witness was a police officer who testified that he observed a male selling rock cocaine to another male. The officer identified the seller as defendant and further testified that he had seen defendant on the street several times after the arrest. It was later established that defendant had been incarcerated since the time of his arrest.
Defense counsel sought to have defendant's jailcard read to the jury in an attempt to impeach the officer's testimony by proving that he had not seen defendant after the arrest. The court denied the request claiming that the issue was collateral. The State stipulated that defendant had been incarcerated since the time of his arrest on the cocaine charge. The jury returned a not guilty verdict.
Noting that there is a difference between the standard of proof required in a criminal trial and the standard in a revocation hearing, the court revoked defendant's probation. Defendant appeals.
The purpose of a revocation hearing is to satisfy the conscience of the court about whether the conditions of probation have been violated and to afford the accused an opportunity to be heard. Randolph v. State, 292 So.2d 374 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 300 So.2d 901 (Fla.1974). Defendant was afforded procedural due process in this case. The fact that defendant was acquitted of the criminal charge is irrelevant. Borges v. State, 249 So.2d 513 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971). Finding that the evidence presented at the revocation hearing sufficiently showed that defendant "willfully and substantially" violated the terms of his probation, we affirm. Kirk v. State, 400 So.2d 540 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
Affirmed.
JORGENSON and COPE, JJ., concur.