Hubbard v. State
| Decision Date | 16 July 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 52340,No. 2,52340,2 |
| Citation | 139 Ga.App. 336,228 S.E.2d 362 |
| Parties | D. R. HUBBARD v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Kenneth L. Gordon, Joseph D. Newman, Gordon & Newman, Hogansville, for appellant.
William F. Lee, Jr., Dist. Atty., Newnan, Robert H. Sullivan, Asst. Dist. Atty., Carrollton, for appellee.
Defendant entered a plea of guilty to burglary on November 11, 1975, and was ordered to serve a sentence of five years on probation. Defendant was not to violate any criminal laws. On February 11, 1976, he was found in an automobile with others with a certain dog which was later determined to have been stolen. Defendant told the officers the dog belonged to him. Defendant was then charged with theft by taking and proceedings were begun to revoke his probation.
1. Defendant first urges that the court erred in overruling a demurrer to the revocation petition. Petition alleged that the defendant had violated the terms and conditions of the probation by committing the offense 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 Ga. 818, 819, 108 S.E.2d 313; Reece v. Pettijohn, 229 Ga. 619, 193 S.E.2d 841; Dickerson v. State, 136 Ga.App. 885, 886, 222 S.E.2d 649.
2. Only slight evidence is required in order to revoke a probation. Sellers v. State, 107 Ga.App. 516, 130 S.E.2d 790. The evidence here shows the defendant was in recent possession of stolen goods without a reasonable explanation. Henson v. State, 136 Ga.App. 868, 869, 222 S.E.2d 685; Peacock v. State, 131 Ga.App. 651, 206 S.E.2d 582; Davis v. State, 129 Ga.App. 796, 802, 201 S.E.2d 345; Aiken v. State, 226 Ga. 840, 178 S.E.2d 202.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wolcott v. State, No. S04A1590, S04A1591.
...Hayes v. State, 168 Ga.App. 94(1), 308 S.E.2d 227 (1983); Edge v. State, 164 Ga.App. 52(1), 296 S.E.2d 368 (1982); Hubbard v. State, 139 Ga.App. 336(1), 228 S.E.2d 362 (1976). Moreover, "[t]he inadequacy of a petition is not necessarily a basis for setting aside a revocation where the factu......
-
Hayes v. State
...burglary on July 17, 1982. This was ample to put appellant on notice and meets the requirements of due process of law. Hubbard v. State, 139 Ga.App. 336(1), 228 S.E.2d 362. Contrary to appellant's assertion, a preliminary hearing is not necessary to comport with due process requirements. Mc......
-
Edge v. State
...S.E.2d 700, supra; Evans v. State, 153 Ga.App. 764, 266 S.E.2d 545; Patat v. State, 142 Ga.App. 398, 236 S.E.2d 143; Hubbard v. State, 139 Ga.App. 336, 228 S.E.2d 362; Horton v. State, 122 Ga.App. 106, 176 S.E.2d 287, supra. Under this standard we find that the state met its burden (see Div......
- David v. State, 52339