Moore v. State
| Decision Date | 31 May 1983 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 876 |
| Citation | 432 So.2d 552 |
| Parties | Billy MOORE v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Gerry E. Adams, Birmingham, for appellant.
Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen. and William D. Little, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This is an appeal from a revocation of probation. In 1979, the defendant pled guilty to violation of the Controlled Substances Act. His sentence of three years was suspended and he was placed on probation.
In March of 1982, the defendant's probation was revoked after the trial judge found that the defendant had probably violated the terms of his probation by committing the offense of theft of property.
On appeal the defendant argues that hearsay will not support a revocation of probation.
Chris Belcher testified that on November 20, 1981, he saw a car pull into the parking lot of a Howard Johnson's Motel. The defendant was sitting in the back seat. One of the two men in the front seat got out of the car, removed four hubcaps from a parked automobile and handed them to the defendant.
Vestavia police officer Terry L. Simpson responded to a call received by another officer reporting a theft of property in progress in the rear parking lot of Howard Johnson's. Simpson stopped the vehicle in which the defendant and his two companions were riding. He observed four hubcaps on the floor of the car.
At the revocation hearing, defense counsel argued that the evidence was insufficient because the owner of the hubcaps never testified that her property was in fact stolen.
The trial judge stated: "I think evidence that a car is parked at Howard Johnson's Motel and people come and take the hubcaps off with a screwdriver and, under surveillance in another car, and attempt to leave the parking lot, is evidence of a theft."
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt or the preponderance of the evidence are not the standards to be applied in determining whether probation should be revoked. "The trial judge must only be reasonably satisfied from the evidence that the probationer has violated the conditions of his probation." Armstrong v. State, 294 Ala. 100, 103, 312 So.2d 620 (1975). However, probation cannot be revoked solely upon hearsay evidence. Hill v. State, 350 So.2d 716 (Ala.Cr.App.1977); Jenkins v. State, 368 So.2d 329 (Ala.Cr.App.1979). Both these cases hold that the probation officer's report constitutes hearsay evidence and is insufficient to sustain a revocation of probation because it denies the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sledge v. State
...623 (1975). Absent a clear abuse of discretion, a reviewing court will not disturb the trial court's conclusions. SeeMoore v. State, 432 So. 2d 552, 553 (Ala. Crim. App. 1983), and Wright v. State, 349 So. 2d 124, 125 (Ala. Crim. App. 1977)." Ex parte J.J.D., 778 So. 2d 240, 242 (Ala. 2000)......
- Holland v. State
-
Walker v. State
...(1975). Absent a clear abuse of discretion, a reviewing court will not disturb the trial court's conclusions. See Moore v. State, 432 So. 2d 552, 553 (Ala. Crim. App. 1983), and Wright v. State, 349 So. 2d 124, 125 (Ala. Crim. App. 1977).’" Ex parte J.J.D., 778 So. 2d [240] at 242 [ (Ala. 2......
-
Holden v. State
...court's order in a probation-revocation proceeding will not be reversed absent a clear abuse of discretion); and Moore v. State 432 So.2d 552, 553 (Ala.Crim.App.1983), quoting Wright v. State, 349 So.2d 124, 125 (Ala.Crim.App.1977) (holding that "`[o]nly a gross abuse of discretion will jus......