Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
12 Alabama opinions name it 1 courts 1986–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alabama courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Chasteen v. Stategreen2 sentences1996As this court stated in Chasteen v. State , 652 So.2d 318 , 318-19 (Ala.Cr.App. 1994): "The appellant contends that his due process rights were violated because the trial court failed to make written findings regarding the reasons it relied upon in revoking his probation. 1996This court stated in Chasteen v. State, 652 So.2d 318 (Ala.Cr.App.1994): “The appellant contends that his due process rights were violated because the trial court failed to make written findings regarding the reasons it relied upon in revoking his probation. | 3 | 4 |
Johnson v. Stategreen1 sentence2015Morrissey 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); Udoakang v. State, 678 So.2d 306 (Ala. Cr.App.1996); Grimes v. State, 579 So.2d 693 (Ala.Cr.App.1991).” Johnson v. State, 729 So.2d 897, 898-99 (Ala.Crim.App.1997). | 1 | 1 |
Hollins v. Stategreen1 sentence2013Regarding minimum due-process requirements for probation-revocation hearings, this Court reiterated in Hollins v. State, 737 So.2d 1056, 1057 (Ala.Crim.App.1998), that “[t]he minimal due process to be accorded a probationer before his probation can be revoked includes written notice of the claimed violations of probation, disclosure to the probationer of the evidence against him, an opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence, the right to confront and to cross-examine adverse witnesses, a neutral and detached hearing body such as a traditional parole bo | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Morrissey v. Brewer
green
2 sentences1997Citing Morrissey v. Brewer , 409 U.S. 471 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972), which held that a parolee is entitled to 1) written notice of the claimed violations, 2) disclosure of the evidence against him, 3) an opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses, 4) the opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, 5) a neutral and detached hearing body, and 6) a written statement of evidence relied on for revoking probation, the United States Supreme Court stated: " 'These requirements in themselves serve as substantial protection against ill-considered revocation 1997Citing Morrissey v. Brewer , 409 U.S. 471 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972), which held that a parolee is entitled to 1) written notice of the claimed violations, 2) disclosure of the evidence against him, 3) an opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses, 4) the opportunity to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, 5) a neutral and detached hearing body, and 6) a written statement of evidence relied on for revoking probation, the United States Supreme Court stated: " 'These requirements in themselves serve as substantial protection against ill-considered revocation | 4 | 1995–2015 |
Lindsey v. State
neutral
2 sentences2018However, "[b]ecause probation itself is an act of grace, a probation revocation hearing does not require all of the formalities of a criminal trial." Lindsey v. State , 768 So.2d 408 , 412 (Ala. Crim. 2018However, "[b]ecause probation itself is an act of grace, a probation revocation hearing does not require all of the formalities of a criminal trial." Lindsey v. State , 768 So.2d 408 , 412 (Ala. Crim. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Armstrong v. State
green
2 sentences2015Morrissey 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); Udoakang v. State, 678 So.2d 306 (Ala. Cr.App.1996); Grimes v. State, 579 So.2d 693 (Ala.Cr.App.1991).” Johnson v. State, 729 So.2d 897, 898-99 (Ala.Crim.App.1997). 2015Morrissey 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); Udoakang v. State, 678 So.2d 306 (Ala. Cr.App.1996); Grimes v. State, 579 So.2d 693 (Ala.Cr.App.1991).” Johnson v. State, 729 So.2d 897, 898-99 (Ala.Crim.App.1997). | 2 | 1998–2015 |
Udoakang v. State
neutral
2 sentences2015Morrissey 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); Udoakang v. State, 678 So.2d 306 (Ala. Cr.App.1996); Grimes v. State, 579 So.2d 693 (Ala.Cr.App.1991).” Johnson v. State, 729 So.2d 897, 898-99 (Ala.Crim.App.1997). 1998Morrissey 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); Udoakang v. State , 678 So.2d 306 (Ala.Cr.App. 1996); Grimes v. State , 579 So.2d 693 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991). | 2 | 1998–2015 |
Gagnon v. Scarpelli
red
2 sentences2015Morrissey 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); Udoakang v. State, 678 So.2d 306 (Ala. Cr.App.1996); Grimes v. State, 579 So.2d 693 (Ala.Cr.App.1991).” Johnson v. State, 729 So.2d 897, 898-99 (Ala.Crim.App.1997). 2015Morrissey 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); Udoakang v. State, 678 So.2d 306 (Ala. Cr.App.1996); Grimes v. State, 579 So.2d 693 (Ala.Cr.App.1991).” Johnson v. State, 729 So.2d 897, 898-99 (Ala.Crim.App.1997). | 2 | 1998–2015 |
Grimes v. State
green
2 sentences2015Morrissey 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); Udoakang v. State, 678 So.2d 306 (Ala. Cr.App.1996); Grimes v. State, 579 So.2d 693 (Ala.Cr.App.1991).” Johnson v. State, 729 So.2d 897, 898-99 (Ala.Crim.App.1997). 1998Morrissey 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); Udoakang v. State , 678 So.2d 306 (Ala.Cr.App. 1996); Grimes v. State , 579 So.2d 693 (Ala.Cr.App. 1991). | 2 | 1998–2015 |
Bullock v. State
green
1 sentence1986A written statement by the judge as to evidence relied on and reasons for revoking parole.'" Bullock, supra at 851 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.