Background
Gerald Lee Rogers appealed an order revoking his community control and imposing the statutory maximum sentence of 60 months. His probation had previously been converted to community control following an earlier violation.
The circuit court found that Rogers willfully and substantially violated two conditions: Condition 3, by changing his residence without the supervising officer’s consent, and Condition 9, by failing to report to the probation office within 24 hours of his release.
The Court’s Holding
The Sixth District held that the State presented only hearsay evidence to establish the alleged residence-change violation under Condition 3. Although hearsay is admissible in a community-control revocation proceeding, it cannot be the sole basis for revocation.
The court found no error in the determination that Rogers willfully and substantially violated Condition 9. But because the record did not clearly show that the circuit court would have revoked community control and imposed the same 60-month sentence based on that one valid violation alone, the court reversed and remanded for reconsideration.
Key Takeaways
- Hearsay may be considered in a community-control revocation hearing, but cannot alone prove a violation.
- The evidence supported Rogers’s violation of the reporting condition.
- On remand, the circuit court must reconsider revocation and any sentence based only on the valid reporting violation.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that a revocation cannot rest solely on hearsay, even though revocation proceedings permit more flexible evidentiary rules than criminal trials.
It also requires resentencing reconsideration when an appellate court cannot determine whether the trial judge would have reached the same revocation and sentencing result without an invalid violation.