Scarbrough v. State, CR-96-0409
Decision Date | 22 August 1997 |
Docket Number | CR-96-0409 |
Citation | 709 So.2d 82 |
Parties | Roy Douglas SCARBROUGH, Jr. v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
Thad Yancey, Jr., Troy, for appellant.
Bill Pryor, atty. gen., and P. David Bjurberg, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
The appellant, Roy Douglas Scarbrough, Jr., appeals from the revocation of his probation. The appellant contends that the trial court's order revoking his probation does not contain the trial court's reasons for revoking his probation or a statement of the evidence relied upon in doing so. The trial court's order revoking probation is as follows:
Although the trial court's order does state the reason for revoking the appellant's probation--the commission of the new offense--it does not specify the evidence the trial court relied upon in revoking the appellant's probation. See Hairgrove v. State, 668 So.2d 887 (Ala.Cr.App.1995); Wyatt v. State, 608 So.2d 762 (Ala.1992); Armstrong v. State, 294 Ala. 100, 312 So.2d 620 (1975).
This cause is therefore, remanded with instructions to the trial court to enter an order stating the evidence relied upon in determining the reasons for the revoking of the appellant's probation. The trial court shall take the necessary action to see that the circuit clerk makes due return to this court at the earliest possible time and within 45 days of the release of this opinion.
REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
All judges concur.
On Return to Remand
On August 22, 1997, we remanded this cause to the trial court with instructions to enter an order stating the evidence relied upon in determining the reasons for revoking the appellant's probation.
The trial court, in compliance with our instructions, issued the following order:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McCoo v. State
...of Armstrong. See McCloud v. State, (Ala.Cr.App.1998); Thornton v. State, 728 So.2d 1162 (Ala.Cr.App.1998); Scarbrough v. State, 709 So.2d 82 (Ala.Cr.App.1997); and Hairgrove v. State, 668 So.2d 887 (Ala.Cr.App. 1995). Thus, the trial court failed to adequately specify the evidence relied u......
-
Holden v. State
...See McCloud v. State, 736 So.2d 1131 (Ala. Crim.App.1998); Thornton v. State, 728 So.2d 1162 (Ala.Crim.App.1998); Scarbrough v. State, 709 So.2d 82 (Ala.Crim. App.1997); and Hairgrove v. State, 668 So.2d 887 (Ala.Crim.App.1995). Thus, the trial court failed to adequately specify the evidenc......
-
McCoo v. State, CR-03-0509.
...of Armstrong. See McCloud v. State, (Ala.Cr.App.1998); Thornton v. State, 728 So.2d 1162 (Ala.Cr.App.1998); Scarbrough v. State, 709 So.2d 82 (Ala. Cr.App.1997); and Hairgrove v. State, 668 So.2d 887 (Ala.Cr.App.1995). Thus, the trial court failed to adequately specify the evidence relied u......
-
Gipson v. State
...See McCloud v. State, 736 So.2d 1131 (Ala. Crim.App.1998); Thornton v. State, 728 So.2d 1162 (Ala.Crim.App.1998); Scarbrough v. State, 709 So.2d 82 (Ala.Crim. App.1997); and Hairgrove v. State, 668 So.2d 887 (Ala.Crim.App.1995). Thus, the trial court failed to adequately specify the evidenc......