McCoo v. State
Decision Date | 29 April 2005 |
Docket Number | 1031852. |
Citation | 921 So.2d 450 |
Parties | Ex parte State of Alabama. (In re Carl Ray McCOO v. STATE of Alabama). |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Troy King, atty. gen., and Michael B. Billingsley, Stephanie N. Morman, and Corey L. Maze, asst. attys. gen., for petitioner.
Marion Chartoff, Montgomery, for respondent.
On December 16, 2004, this Court granted the State's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals in McCoo v. State, 921 So.2d 446 (Ala.Crim.App.2004). In McCoo, the Court of Criminal Appeals remanded the case for the trial court to enter a probation-revocation order that complied with Wyatt v. State, 608 So.2d 762 (Ala. 1992). We granted the State's petition with respect to three issues: (1) whether and under what circumstances this Court should consider petitions for the writ of certiorari seeking review of an order of remand by the Court of Criminal Appeals, as in Bishop v. State, 608 So.2d 345 (Ala. 1992); (2) whether this Court should overrule the requirement in Wyatt "`that the trial court must issue a written order stating the reasons for the revocation and the evidence it relied upon, even where the transcript of the proceeding, coupled with the order, indicates the evidence relied upon by the trial court and the trial court's reason for the revocation,'" McCoo, 921 So.2d at 449-50 (quoting Wyatt, 608 So.2d at 763); and (3) whether an appellate court of this State should review an allegation of a due-process violation when redressing the violation cannot afford the aggrieved party any relief. On March 1, 2005, the Court heard oral argument on these issues.
In the case before us, Carl Ray McCoo entered a plea of guilty on August 22, 2001, to the charge of conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree. He was sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment, but that sentence was "split,"1 and McCoo was ordered to serve 3 years' imprisonment followed by 3 years' probation. On May 22, 2003, McCoo was brought before the trial court; the remainder of his period of incarceration was suspended; and he was placed on probation until May 22, 2006. On December 9, 2003, McCoo again appeared before the trial court in a delinquency hearing arising from his arrest on a charge of robbery in the first degree, a violation of Ala.Code 1975, § 13A-8-41. He was advised by the court that he was charged with having violated the conditions of his probation by committing that offense. McCoo was adjudged delinquent, an attorney appointed to represent him, and a probation-revocation hearing scheduled. On December 17, 2003, the probation-revocation hearing was conducted, and on that same day the trial court revoked McCoo's probation and reinstated his 10-year sentence.
McCoo appealed his probation revocation to the Court of Criminal Appeals, arguing that the trial court's revocation of his probation was erroneous because, he said, it was based entirely on hearsay evidence; McCoo also argued that he was entitled to a written order adequately explaining the evidence the trial court relied on in revoking his probation and the reasons his probation was revoked. The Court of Criminal Appeals summarized the facts adduced at the probation-revocation hearing as follows:
The Court of Criminal Appeals first determined that McCoo had failed to present to the trial court his argument that that court had improperly considered hearsay evidence at the probation-revocation hearing and therefore concluded that that argument had not been preserved for appellate review.
With respect to McCoo's argument concerning the adequacy of the revocation order, the Court of Criminal Appeals stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McInnish v. Bennett
... 150 So.3d 1045 (Mem) Hugh McINNISH and Virgil H. Goode, Jr. v. Jim BENNETT, Alabama Secretary of State. 1 1120465. Supreme Court of Alabama. March 21, 2014. L. Dean Johnson, Huntsville and Larry Klayman of Klayman Law Firm, Washington, D.C., for ... Ezell, 291 Ala. 440, 444, 282 So.2d 266, 270 (1973) ], supra (same). McCoo v. State, 921 So.2d 450, 458 (Ala.2005). See also Lawrence v. Blackwell, 430 F.3d 368, 371 (6th Cir.2005) (Challenges to election laws are one of ... ...
-
Cooley v. Price
... ... DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION October 1, 2014 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Charles Edward Cooley, Jr., a state prisoner presently in the custody of respondent Cheryl Price, has petitioned this Court for federal habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 ... Bernody and Mr. Jones. (C.R. 95-96). Based on the record, the findings satisfy the requirements set [] forth in R. 27.6(f), Ala.R.Crim.P. See McCoo v. State , 921 So.2d 450 (Ala. 2005) and Ex parte Garlington , 998 So.2d 458 (Ala. 2008). Petitioner has failed to raise a material issue of fact or ... ...
-
Veitch v. Friday
... ... 138 is unconstitutional. We review constitutional challenges to legislative enactments de novo. State ex rel. King v. Morton , 955 So. 2d 1012, 1017 (Ala. 2006) (citing Richards v. Izzi , 819 So. 2d 25, 29 n.3 (Ala. 2001) ). Analysis As a ... Ezell , 291 Ala. 440, 282 So. 2d 266 (1973) ] (same)." McCoo v. State , 921 So. 2d 450, 458 (Ala. 2005). As the citations in McCoo illustrate, an election-law challenge is a classic example of a question ... ...
-
Todd v. State
... ... This exception to the mootness doctrine is applied when the question " involve[s] a significant issue that cannot be addressed by a reviewing court because of some intervening factual circumstance. " Veitch , 314 So. 3d at 1236 (quoting McCoo v. State , 921 So. 2d 450, 458 (Ala. 2005) ). We think this is one of those questions. Thus, we turn to the merits of Todd's procedural argument and answer whether the timing of Todd's immunity hearing was, in fact, a procedural defect under the immunity statute. Section 13A-3-23(d)(1) provides ... ...
-
The Appellate Corner
...its probation revocation.Though an appellate court may examine the record to determine the basis for revocation under McCoo v. State, 921 So. 2d 450, 462 (Ala. 2005), the record was unclear, thus necessitating remand. Rule 32; Construction of Pleadings S.R.A. v. State, CR-18-0004 (Ala. Crim......