Faulkner v. State
| Decision Date | 23 June 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,No. 38345,38345,2 |
| Parties | Paul FAULKNER v. STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
On a hearing to determine whether probation should be revoked, the judge of the court in which the probation sentence was passed is the sole trior of the facts.
After due notice to the defendant, the Judge of the City Court of Chattooga County conducted a hearing on March 11, 1960, to determine whether he had violated conditions of a probationary sentence previously passed in that court, which sentence was in force and effect on January 25, 1960, and due to expire July 24, 1960. Among the conditions of probation the sentence provided: That the defendant 'shall violate no penal law or municipal ordinance.' On the hearing, the defendant and his counsel being present, the judge determined that the defendant had violated the above quoted conditions of probation, and ordered that 'he serve 2 months of the sentence originally imposed in the public works camp or at such other penal institution as the Director of Correction may direct'.
Archibald A. Farrar, Summerville, for plaintiff in error.
Earl B. Self, Sol. Gen., Summerville, for defendant in error.
Only slight evidence is required to authorize the revocation of a sentence being served on probation. Waters v. State, 80 Ga.App. 104, 55 S.E.2d 677; Allen v. State, 78 Ga.App. 526, 51 S.E.2d 571.
The evidence charging the defendant with the offense of gambling on January 25, 1960, is entirely circumstantial, but was sufficient to authorize the trial judge to conclude that the defendant had committed the offense of gambling with cards. The testimony revealed that officers with a search warrant raided a house and found, among other things, the defendant seated at a table with other persons. Playing cards and sums of money were scattered across the table. Circumstantial evidence may be used to show a violation of a probation. In Pacetti v. State, 82 Ga. 297, 7 S.E. 867, 868, a case requiring greater weight of evidence that the instant case, Judge Bleckley wrote of circumstantial evidence as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dickerson v. State
...627. Only 'slight evidence' has been required to show that the defendant violated the conditions of his probation. Faulkner v. State, 101 Ga.App. 889, 115 S.E.2d 393; Hinton v. State, 127 Ga.App. 853, 195 S.E.2d This minimal evidentary standard was largely the result of the view that probat......
-
Sellers v. State
...to a just result.' Sparks v. State, 77 Ga.App. 22, 24, 47 S.E.2d 678, 680, supra. Only 'slight evidence' is required. Faulkner v. State, 101 Ga.App. 889, 115 S.E.2d 393. This court will not interfere with a revocation unless there has been a manifest abuse of discretion on the part of the t......
-
Scott v. State
...to a just result.' Sparks v. State, 77 Ga.App. 22, 24, 47 S.E.2d 678, 680, supra. Only 'slight evidence' is required. Faulkner v. State, 101 Ga.App. 889, 115 S.E.2d 393. This court will not interfere with a revocation unless there has been a manifest abuse of discretion on the part of the t......
-
Young v. State
...the revocation of defendant's probation after hearing the testimony. Widner v. State, 137 Ga.App. 244, 223 S.E.2d 278; Faulkner v. State, 101 Ga.App. 889, 115 S.E.2d 393; Turner v. State, 119 Ga.App. 117, 166 S.E.2d 582; Purgason v. State, 145 Ga.App. 277, 243 S.E.2d 554; Cook v. State, 145......