probation revocation hearing in Alabama

2023Whether to admit hearsay evidence at a probation-revocation hearing is within the discretion of the court. 10 CR-2023-0338 Puckett v. State, 680 So. 2d 980, 981 (Ala. Crim.

2014Puckett v. State, 680 So.2d 980, 981 (Ala.Crim.App.1996). [[Image here]] “To summarize, at a probation-revocation hearing a circuit court must examine the facts and circumstances supporting each alleged violation of probation.

2000This Court stated in Mitchell v. State, 462 So.2d 740, 742 (Ala. Cr.App.1984): “It is not necessary in a probation revocation hearing to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt or by a preponderance of the evidence.

1985Most recently, in Mitchell v. State, 462 So.2d 740 (Ala.Crim.App.1984) we noted that it "is not necessary in a probation revocation hearing to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt or by a preponderance of the evidence." In the case at bar there was clearly sufficient legal evidence from which the trial judge could conclude that appellant violated the terms of his probation by committing a new crime.

2018See also Hollins v. State , 737 So.2d 1056 , 1057 (Ala. Crim.

2009On appeal, Pearson contends, as he did in his Rule 32 petition, that his due-process rights were violated when the circuit court revoked his probation without conducting a probation-revocation hearing. 3 In Hollins v. State, 737 So.2d 1056, 1057 (Ala.Crim.App.1998), this court held: *822 “Section 15-22-54, Ala.Code 1975, requires a hearing as a prerequisite to the revocation of probation.

2016If a new probation-revocation hearing is conducted, the circuit court should ensure that it complies with the due-process requirements set forth in Morrissey v. Brewer , 408 U.S. 471 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972) ; Gagnon v. Scarpelli , 411 U.S. 778 , 93 S.Ct. 1756 , 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973) ; Armstrong v. State , 294 Ala. 100 , 312 So.2d 620 (1975) ; and Rule 27, Ala. R.Crim.

2016If a new probation-revocation hearing is conducted, the circuit court should ensure that it complies with the due-process requirements set forth in Morrissey v. Brewer , 408 U.S. 471 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972) ; Gagnon v. Scarpelli , 411 U.S. 778 , 93 S.Ct. 1756 , 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973) ; Armstrong v. State , 294 Ala. 100 , 312 So.2d 620 (1975) ; and Rule 27, Ala. R.Crim.

2016This Court has held that “ ‘ “a probation revocation hearing is not criminal in nature, and therefore neither formal procedures, nor formal rules of evidence need be followed by the trial court.” ’ Allen v. State, 644 So.2d 45, 46 (Ala.Crim.App.1994)(quoting Smith v. State, 445 So.2d 573, 574-575 (Ala.Crim.App.1984)); Thompson v. State, 356 So.2d 757 (Ala.Crim.App.1978); Goodrum v. State, 418 So.2d 942 (Ala.Crim.App.1982).

2008However, “ 1 “a probation revocation hearing is not criminal in nature, and therefore neither formal procedures nor formal rules of evidence need be followed by the trial court.” ’ Allen v. State, 644 So.2d 45, 46 (Ala.Crim.App.1994) (quoting Smith v. State, 445 So.2d 573, 574-575 (Ala.Crim.

2016This Court has held that “ ‘ “a probation revocation hearing is not criminal in nature, and therefore neither formal procedures, nor formal rules of evidence need be followed by the trial court.” ’ Allen v. State, 644 So.2d 45, 46 (Ala.Crim.App.1994)(quoting Smith v. State, 445 So.2d 573, 574-575 (Ala.Crim.App.1984)); Thompson v. State, 356 So.2d 757 (Ala.Crim.App.1978); Goodrum v. State, 418 So.2d 942 (Ala.Crim.App.1982).

2008However, “ 1 “a probation revocation hearing is not criminal in nature, and therefore neither formal procedures nor formal rules of evidence need be followed by the trial court.” ’ Allen v. State, 644 So.2d 45, 46 (Ala.Crim.App.1994) (quoting Smith v. State, 445 So.2d 573, 574-575 (Ala.Crim.

2005Thus, the order did not sufficiently state the evidence the trial court relied on in revoking Pate's probation."); Murphy v. State, 856 So.2d 949, 951 (Ala.Crim.App. 2003) ("Although in its order revoking Murphy's probation the circuit court named the people who testified at the probation-revocation hearing, it did not state to any extent the substance of that testimony.... *304 Therefore, the order is insufficient."); and Norwood v. State, 804 So.2d 1164, 1166-67 (Ala.Crim.App.2001) ("Because the trial judge's order states only that he relied on the testimony of Al Dowdy and Felicia Thomas, t

2003Therefore, the order is insufficient."); Holden v. State , 820 So.2d 158 , 162 (Ala.Crim.App. 2001) ("the trial court's order, stating only that it relied on `the evidence presented by the State at the defendant's probation revocation hearing,' was not adequate"); and Norwood v. State , 804 So.2d 1164 , 1166-67 (Ala.Crim.App. 2001) ("Because the trial judge's order states only that he relied on the testimony of Al Dowdy and Felicia Thomas, the order is insufficient, and we must remand the cause so that the court can specify the evidence on which it relied.").

2008Thus, the order did not sufficiently state the evidence the trial court relied on in revoking Pate’s probation.’); Murphy v. State, 856 So.2d 949, 951 (Ala.Crim.App.2003) (‘Although in its order revoking Murphy’s probation the circuit court named the people who testified at the probation-revocation hearing, it did not state to any extent the substance of that testimony....

2005Thus, the order did not sufficiently state the evidence the trial court relied on in revoking Pate's probation."); Murphy v. State, 856 So.2d 949, 951 (Ala.Crim.App. 2003) ("Although in its order revoking Murphy's probation the circuit court named the people who testified at the probation-revocation hearing, it did not state to any extent the substance of that testimony.... *304 Therefore, the order is insufficient."); and Norwood v. State, 804 So.2d 1164, 1166-67 (Ala.Crim.App.2001) ("Because the trial judge's order states only that he relied on the testimony of Al Dowdy and Felicia Thomas, t

2025While this court is permitted to examine the record to determine whether a circuit court's findings, either oral or transcribed, create a sufficient record to advise of the reasons for the revocation and the evidence relied on, see McCoo, supra, we are unable to do so in this case because no transcript of the probation- revocation hearing exists for this court to review.

2014Although this Court is permitted to examine the record to determine whether a circuit court’s findings, either oral or transcribed, create a record sufficient to advise of the reasons for the revocation and the evidence relied on, see McCoo, supra, we are unable to do so in this case because no transcript of the probation-revocation hearing exists for this Court to review.

2018A revocation proceeding is "a bench trial and the trial court is the sole fact-finder." Ex parte Abrams , 3 So.3d 819 , 823 (Ala. 2008). " 'It is not necessary in a probation revocation hearing to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt or by a preponderance of the evidence.

2018A revocation proceeding is "a bench trial and the trial court is the sole fact-finder." Ex parte Abrams , 3 So.3d 819 , 823 (Ala. 2008). " 'It is not necessary in a probation revocation hearing to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt or by a preponderance of the evidence.

2024Rather, the lower court need only be "reasonably satisfied from the evidence that the probationer has violated the conditions of his probation." ' " Goodgain v. State, 755 So. 2d 591, 592 (Ala. Crim.

2015At the time of the revocation hearing, Goodgain had yet to be tried on the robbery charge.” ‘755 So.2d at 592. “‘The Court of Criminal Appeals stated: “ ‘It is not necessary in a probation revocation hearing'to provide proof beyond a reasonable doubt or by a preponderance of the evidence.

2018Therefore, we must conclude that Saffold was denied his right to a probation-revocation hearing.' " Saffold , 77 So.3d at 182 ." Singleton v. State , 114 So.3d 868 , 870-72 (Ala. Crim.

2018Therefore, we must conclude that Saffold was denied his right to a probation-revocation hearing.' " Saffold , 77 So.3d at 182 ." Singleton v. State , 114 So.3d 868 , 870-72 (Ala. Crim.

2013See Dean v. State, 57 So.3d 169 (Ala.2010) (holding that the circuit court’s failure to appoint counsel at a probation-revocation hearing is subject to harmless-error analysis); Davis v. State, 855 So.2d 1142 (Ala.Crim.App.2003) (holding that a circuit court’s failure to advise a probation-revocation defendant of his right to counsel was subject to harmless-error analysis).

2013See Dean v. State, 57 So.3d 169 (Ala.2010) (holding that the circuit court’s failure to appoint counsel at a probation-revocation hearing is subject to harmless-error analysis); Davis v. State, 855 So.2d 1142 (Ala.Crim.App.2008) (holding that a circuit court’s failure to advise a probation-revocation defendant of his right to counsel was subject to harmless-error analysis).

2002He also cites Mallette v. State , 572 So.2d 1316 , 1317 (Ala.Crim.App. 1990), and Chasteen v. State , 652 So.2d 319 , 320 (Ala.Civ.App. 1994), for the proposition that hearsay evidence cannot be the sole basis for revoking a defendant's probation.

1991Mallette v. State, 572 So.2d 1316, 1317 (Ala.Cr.App.1990), and authorities cited therein.

2024This Court stated that, "[a]lthough the July 13, 2005, hearing purported to be a probation-revocation hearing, the court announced that it was revoking D.L.B.'s probation without hearing testimony from any State's witnesses and without allowing D.L.B. an opportunity to be 7 CR-2024-0472 heard." D.L.B., 941 So. 2d at 326 .

2015“In D.L.B. v. State, 941 So.2d 324 (Ala.Crim.App.2006), this court addressed a similar issue in which the defendant challenged whether he had received a probation-revocation hearing.

2016The Enfinger Court addressed a factual situation "where the circuit court impose[d] a split sentence and a term of probation under the Split-Sentence Act when it had no authority to do so and later conduct[ed] a probation-revocation hearing at which it revoke[d] a defendant's probationary term and order[d] that the defendant serve the remainder of his underlying sentence in prison." 123 So.3d at 538 .

2015Additionally, this Court in Enfinger v. State, 123 So.3d 535 (Ala.Crim.App.2012), held that, because the circuit court did not have the authority under the Split Sentence Act to impose a term of probation on Enfinger, the circuit court had no authority to conduct a probation-revocation hearing and to revoke Enfinger’s probation.

2005Thus, the trial court failed to adequately specify the evidence relied upon in revoking the appellant's probation by stating only that it had "heard testimony and arguments of counsel." "`Although the transcript of the probation revocation hearing presents evidence that supports the court's order revoking the appellant's probation, the Alabama Supreme Court held in Wyatt that the trial court must issue a written order stating the reasons for the revocation and the evidence it relied upon, even where "the transcript of the proceeding, coupled with the order, indicates the evidence relied upon b

2004Thus, the trial court failed to adequately specify the evidence relied upon in revoking the appellant's probation by stating only that it had `heard testimony and arguments of counsel.' "Although the transcript of the probation revocation hearing presents evidence that supports the court's order revoking the appellant's probation, the Alabama Supreme Court held in Wyatt that the trial court must issue a written order stating the reasons for the revocation and the evidence it relied upon, even where `the transcript of the proceeding, coupled with the order, indicates the evidence relied upon by

2016On appeal, Kiker contends, among other things, that the circuit court erred when it failed to advise him "of his right to request counsel to represent him during the revocation proceedings." 1 (Kiker's brief, p. 4.) This Court has explained, that "[a]lthough a probationer does not have an unqualified right to counsel at a probation-revocation hearing, Coon v. State , 675 So.2d 94 , 95 (Ala.Crim.App.1995), it is incumbent upon the sentencing court to determine whether the probationer has such a right before revoking probation. " ' "[T]here is no automatic right to counsel in a probation revocat

2010“Although a probationer does not have an unqualified right to counsel at a probation-revocation hearing, Coon v. State, 675 So.2d 94, 95 (Ala.Crim.App.1995), it is incumbent upon the sentencing court to determine whether the probationer has such a right before revoking his probation.” Turner v. State, 981 So.2d 444, 447 (Ala.Crim.App.2007).

2016On appeal, Kiker contends, among other things, that the circuit court erred when it failed to advise him "of his right to request counsel to represent him during the revocation proceedings." 1 (Kiker's brief, p. 4.) This Court has explained, that "[a]lthough a probationer does not have an unqualified right to counsel at a probation-revocation hearing, Coon v. State , 675 So.2d 94 , 95 (Ala.Crim.App.1995), it is incumbent upon the sentencing court to determine whether the probationer has such a right before revoking probation. " ' "[T]here is no automatic right to counsel in a probation revocat

2007Although a probationer does not have an unqualified right to counsel at a probation-revocation hearing, Coon v. State , 675 So.2d 94 , 95 (Ala.Crim.App. 1995), it is incumbent upon the sentencing court to determine whether the probationer has such a right before revoking probation. `"[T]here is no automatic right to counsel in a probation revocation proceeding.' Law v. State , 778 So.2d 249 , 250 (Ala.Crim.App. 2000) (citing Spence v. State , 766 So.2d 206 , 207 (Ala.Crim.App. 1999)).

2015Rather, the lower court need only be “reasonably satisfied from the evidence that the probationer has violated the conditions of his probation.” ’ ” 755 So.2d at 592 (quoting Mitchell v. State, 462 So.2d 740, 742 (Ala.Crim.App.1984), quoting in turn Armstrong v. State, 294 Ala. 100, 103 , 312 So.2d 620, 623 (1975)), However, the Court of Criminal, Appeals also stated: “[H]earsay evidence may not form the sole basis for revoking an individual’s probation.... ‘The use of hearsay as the sole means of proving a violation of a condition of probation denies a probationer .the right to confront and t

2002Evid., provides, in pertinent part: "Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by these rules, or by other rules adopted by the Supreme Court of Alabama or by statute." However, Rule 27.6(d)(1), Ala.R.Crim.P., provides, in pertinent part, that at a probation-revocation hearing "[t]he court may receive any reliable, relevant evidence not legally privileged, including hearsay." In his brief to this Court, Toney argues that "'[t]he use of hearsay as the sole means of proving a violation of a condition of probation denies a probationer the right to confront and to cross-examine the persons orig

2004This was more than due process requires to revoke his probation. `(N)either our statute, ... nor the Constitution requires a final conviction of probationer on the offense charged before his probation may be revoked.' Free v. State, 392 So.2d 857, 859 (Ala.Cr.App. 1980), cert. denied, Ex parte Free, 392 So.2d 859 (Ala.1981). ". . .

2004This was more than due process requires to revoke his probation. `(N)either our statute, . . . nor the Constitution requires a final conviction of probationer on the offense charged before his probation may be revoked.' Free v. State , 392 So.2d 857 , 859 (Ala.Cr.App. 1980), cert. denied, Ex parte Free , 392 So.2d 859 (Ala. 1981). ". . .