Clayton v. State, CR-94-0897
Decision Date | 29 September 1995 |
Docket Number | CR-94-0897 |
Citation | 669 So.2d 220 |
Parties | Ricky Ebony CLAYTON v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Appeal from Houston Circuit Court (CC-93-333); Denny Holloway, Judge.
Christopher Capps, Dothan, for Appellant.
Jeff Sessions, Atty. Gen., and Jean Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., for Appellee.
ON RETURN TO REMAND
The appellant, Ricky Ebony Clayton, appeals from the revocation of his probation. The appellant was convicted of theft of property in the first degree in February 1994 and was sentenced to 10 years in prison. He was placed on probation in April 1994. On January 25, 1995, his probation was revoked.
We originally remanded this cause with directions to the trial court to enter an order stating the evidence relied upon and the reasons for revoking the appellant's probation, as required by Rule 27.6(f), Ala.R.Crim.P, and Armstrong v. State, 294 Ala. 100, 312 So.2d 620 (1975). Clayton v. State, 669 So.2d 220 (Ala.Cr.App.1995). The trial court filed the following "amended order" on return to remand:
(C. 5.)
The reasons given by the trial court are not sufficient to support a revocation of probation. "A 'mere arrest' or the filing of charges is an insufficient basis for revoking one's probation." Allen v. State, 644 So.2d 45, 46 (Ala.Cr.App.1994).
Chasteen v. State, 652 So.2d 319, 320 (Ala.Cr.App.1994) (quoting Mitchell v. State, 462 So.2d 740, 742 (Ala.Cr.App.1984)).
The record shows that on November 7, 1994, the appellant's probation officer filed a "Supervision Report on Delinquent Probationer" recommending that the appellant's probation be revoked on the ground that the appellant had been arrested on October 31, 1994, for assault in the second degree against his common law wife, and that the offense allegedly resulted in the victim's suffering a broken arm.
At the January 1995 probation revocation hearing, the district attorney informed the trial court that a preliminary hearing on the alleged assault had been held in the district court, after which the appellant had been charged with harassment. The district attorney then recited the details of the alleged incident as contained in the probation officer's report. The trial court examined the probation officer's report and stated, (R. 8.) No other evidence was offered at the revocation hearing to support the allegations in the probation officer's report. The probation officer did not testify, and neither he nor the district attorney was present when the crime was committed. Neither the victim nor any other witness who could have identified the appellant as the perpetrator of the crime testified.
The state failed to present at the hearing any substantive evidence showing that the appellant, in fact, had committed the offense for which he was arrested. It is apparent from the record, read in conjunction with the trial court's order on return to remand, that the appellant's probation was revoked based on hearsay...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dunn v. State (Ex parte Dunn)
...the persons originating information that forms the basis of the revocation.’ ” 755 So.2d at 592 (quoting Clayton v. State, 669 So.2d 220, 222 (Ala.Crim.App.1995) ).The Court of Criminal Appeals in Goodgain determined that “the only evidence that Goodgain violated his probation by committing......
-
Watts v. State
...the right to confront and to cross-examine the persons originating the information that forms the basis of the revocation.' Clayton, 669 So.2d at 222." "'Goodgain v. State, 755 So.2d 591, "'To summarize, at a probation-revocation hearing a circuit court must examine the facts and circumstan......