Joey Dawson vs State of Florida
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA JOEY DAWSON, Appellant, v. NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NOS. 1D14-4630/1D14-4631 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _____________________________/ Opinion filed July 21, 2015. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County. Kevin J. Carroll, Judge. Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Joel Arnold, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Julian E. Markham, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. We consolidate these cases for purposes of this opinion. Appellant pled nolo contendere to criminal charges in both cases, and the circuit court imposed concurrent sentences of probation. Appellant challenges orders revoking his probation in both cases based on the court’s finding that appellant violated the terms of his probation by testing positive for cocaine. Appellant argues the orders must be reversed because the State’s evidence was entirely hearsay. We agree. The only evidence presented by the State to prove appellant’s violation was his probation officer’s testimony that she conducted a urinalysis at her office that indicated appellant used cocaine, and then she sent a urine sample to a laboratory which issued a report indicating the urine tested positive for cocaine. Case law is clear that laboratory test reports not testified to by an expert are hearsay. See Hogan v. State, 583 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). We find the probation officer’s testimony regarding the test she performed in her office to be indistinguishable from the officer’s testimony in Bray v. State, 75 So. 3d 749 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011), and thus it was also hearsay. Because the State’s evidence consisted entirely of hearsay evidence, the orders revoking appellant’s probation are REVERSED. WOLF, WETHERELL, and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
