
    William WALLACE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 83-384.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
    Nov. 9, 1983.
    Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Allen J. DeWeese, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
    Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Sharon Lee Stedman, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals an order revoking his probation. The defendant allegedly committed one robbery and engaged in a conspiracy to commit another robbery. He was also charged with several other technical violations relating to monthly reports, costs of supervision, and change of residence. The only evidence supporting the robbery violation was hearsay testimony. A finding of violation based solely on hearsay is erroneous. Reeves v. State, 366 So.2d 1229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979), and Combs v. State, 351 So.2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).

We, therefore, vacate the violation based on defendant’s alleged participation in the robbery and affirm the overall revocation of his probation based on the remaining violations. Adequate evidence supported the technical violations and the conspiracy violation.

AFFIRMED.

BERANEK and DELL, JJ., concur.

ANSTEAD, C.J., dissents in part with opinion.

ANSTEAD, Chief Judge,

dissenting in part:

The violation of probation predicated on the finding that appellant engaged in a conspiracy to commit robbery should also be stricken because the finding was predicated on hearsay testimony. The only evidence presented to establish that a conspiracy existed was the testimony of a police officer that an informant had told him of the conspiracy. That proof would not even be admissible at a trial, and, while perhaps it is not reversible error to receive it in a probation revocation proceeding, such evidence may not serve as the sole predicate for establishing an essential element of an alleged probation violation. While the case law is confusing, I believe the rule to be that while the formal rules of trial procedure, including the receipt of evidence, do not apply at probation violation proceedings, the state must still submit competent proof, in the form of evidence that would be admissible at a criminal trial, of any alleged violation of probation. In other words, it is not necessarily harmful or reversible error to receive incompetent evidence in a revocation proceeding so long as other, competent proof is presented to sustain the finding of a violation.  