Horton v. State, 45423
| Decision Date | 26 June 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 45423,No. 3,45423,3 |
| Citation | 176 S.E.2d 287,122 Ga.App. 106 |
| Parties | James E. HORTON v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Howard P. Wallace, Jonesboro, for appellant.
No appearance for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
This case involves the violation by the appellant of a probationary feature of a sentence in which he is charged with having been arrested for possessing and selling non-taxpaid whiskey and operating a gambling house. Held:
1. In order to revoke the probationary features of a sentence the defendant must have notice and opportunity to be heard, the notice being sufficient to inform him not only of the time and place of the hearing and the fact that revocation is sought, but the grounds upon which it is based. It may not be revoked where there is no evidence that the defendant violated its terms in the manner charged in the notice, even though there be evidence at the hearing that the defendant violated the terms of probation in some other manner as to which there was no notice given. See George v. State, 99 Ga.App. 892(1), 109 S.E.2d 883; Gay v. State, 101 Ga.App. 225, 113 S.E.2d 223; Dingler v. State, 101 Ga.App. 312, 113 S.E.2d 496.
2. Slight evidence will support a judgment of revocation since the trial court on such a hearing has a wide discretion in considering the evidence against the probationer. Allen v. State, 78 Ga.App. 526, 51 S.E.2d 571.
3. The evidence here is sufficient to show the violation of the following condition of probation:
'(9) Violate no local, State or Federal laws and be of general good behavior.'
However, the only charge, of which he received notice, was as follows:
The evidence against him is indeed slight, yet the evidence here is sufficient to show he was in possession of a one-pint of non-taxpaid whiskey in a ketchup bottle found in his home on the date alleged. There was also evidence of lottery being conducted in his home as well. Considering the case as to whether slight evidence would be sufficient, since the other evidence, because of the failure to notify him of those charges as a basis for revocation should not be considered, yet there is some evidence that the defendant violated the conditions of his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kitchens v. State
...that the defendant violated the terms of probation in some other manner as to which there was no notice given." Horton v. State, 122 Ga.App. 106(1), 176 S.E.2d 287 (1970). See also Lester v. Foster, 207 Ga. 596, 598, 63 S.E.2d 402 (1951). Likewise, if a judgment is based upon an offense not......
-
Edge v. State
...evidence pertaining to the burglary of the other two businesses. A similar challenge was raised in the case of Horton v. State, 122 Ga.App. 106, 107, 176 S.E.2d 287. In that case, the defendant was charged with violating his conditions of probation in that he possessed and sold illegal whis......
-
Wilson v. State, s. 58670
...... See Horton v. State, 122 Ga.App. 106, 107(3), 176 S.E.2d 287. Appellant Britt asserts several other reasons he contends show that the revocation ......
-
Hubbard v. State
...of theft by taking on February 11, 1976. This was ample to put him on notice and meets requirements of due process. Horton v. State, 122 Ga.App. 106(3),176 S.E.2d 287; Scott v. State, 131 Ga.App. 504, 206 S.E.2d 137; Dutton v. Willis, 223 Ga. 209, 211, 154 S.E.2d 221; Johnson v. State, 214 ......
-
Change in Condition and New Accident: the Difference Between the Two, Elements of Each, and Burdens of Proof - Michael F. Antonwich
...270. Id. at 105, 176 s.e.2d at 283. 271. Id. See also Fairway Transp., Inc. v. Brewer, 192 Ga. App. 871, 386 s.e.2d 674 (1989). 272. 122 Ga. App. at 106, 176 s.e.2d at 284. 273. 142 Ga. App. 517, 236 s.e.2d 183 (1977). 274. Id. at 519, 236 s.e.2d at 185. 275. Id. at 518, 236 s.e.2d at 184. ......