Thompson v. State
Decision Date | 21 March 1978 |
Docket Number | 1 Div. 885 |
Parties | Lawrence THOMPSON v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
A. Holmes Whiddon, Mobile, for appellant.
William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and Milton E. Belcher, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
In April of 1975 appellant was indicted for the offense of burglary in the second degree. When his case was called for trial he made application to be treated as a Youthful Offender. This application was granted and appellant waived a jury trial and pleaded guilty to being a Youthful Offender. He was sentenced to three years in the custody of the Director of the Department of Corrections. This sentence was suspended "pending the good behavior" of appellant for a period of three years. This order was made on May 8, 1975. In addition to suspending appellant's sentence the trial court assessed a fine of one hundred dollars against him and also the court costs.
On May 27, 1977 the State, through the District Attorney's Office of Mobile County, moved that appellant's probation be revoked on the ground that he had violated a valid condition on which the probation was granted. Specifically, the motion for revocation alleged that, on March 7, 1977, appellant was arrested on a charge of murder in the first degree and that this charge was then pending in the Circuit Court of Mobile County.
The revocation hearing was held on September 20, 1977, and appellant was duly notified to appear and show cause, if any, why the suspension of the execution of the sentence imposed on him on the 23rd day of June, 1975, should not be revoked.
At the revocation hearing appellant was represented by counsel. Mike Reynolds testified for the State that he was appellant's probation officer and that he filed a delinquency report on appellant on May 3, 1977. This report was admitted into evidence without objection. Reynolds further testified that appellant had also been charged with assault with intent to murder on August 1, 1977. The delinquency report is as follows:
The probation officer further testified that he investigated the facts surrounding the murder charge and the charge of assault with intent to murder. He ascertained the murder victim was one Michael Weathington and there had been a shoot-out at a nightclub known as the Jolly Spot involving this appellant and several others, all armed with weapons.
The charge of assault with intent to murder was related to the participants in the shoot-out in which Weathington was killed.
Appellant testified and admitted that he was charged with murder and also assault with intent to murder all growing out of and related to the shoot-out at the night spot. At this point the hearing was interrupted by the trial judge for the purpose of advising appellant of his constitutional rights not to give incriminating evidence against himself. He advised appellant that any testimony he gave of an incriminating nature could be used against him in the trial of the two cases pending against him. Appellant told the court that he understood his rights and was aware that the District Attorney could use any statement he made showing his involvement in the murder case and the assault with intent to murder case pending against him.
Appellant then testified that some people "ambushed" him and some of his friends the night that Weathington was killed but that he did not shoot at the deceased, saying "I didn't even have a gun."
On cross-examination he stated that his name was Lawrence Thompson but that he was also known as Lawrence Kidd. He said he knew a boy named "Knot" whose real name was Gerald Barnes and they were present at the Jolly Spot where the shooting occurred. At this time appellant objected to any further questions. The Court sustained the objection and would...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hughes v. Gwinn
...parolee--which should not be unduly constricted by imposing Miranda warnings each time questioning is undertaken. E.g., Thompson v. State, 356 So.2d 757 (Ala.Cr.App.1978); People v. Coleman, 13 Cal.3d 867, 120 Cal.Rptr. 384, 533 P.2d 1024 (1975); State v. Lassai, 366 So.2d 1389 (La.1978); S......
-
Caffie v. State
...rule, as it applies to the failure to give Miranda rights, does not apply in probation revocation hearings. Thompson v. State, 356 So.2d 757 (Ala.Cr.App.1978). While it is true that the evidence of appellant's possession of contraband in the case at bar was obtained as the result of an ille......
-
Fields v. State
...federal jurisdictions have held that Miranda warnings were not required during presentence interviews. In addition, in Thompson v. State, 356 So.2d 757 (Ala.Crim.App.1978), this Court held that the appellant's statement to a law-enforcement officer admitting that he had been involved in a m......
-
Puckett v. State
...clear that the formality and evidentiary standards of a criminal trial are not required in parole revocation hearings. Thompson v. State, 356 So.2d 757 (Ala.Cr.App.1978), Armstrong v. State, 294 Ala. 100, 312 So.2d 620 (1975). Hearsay evidence may be admitted in the discretion of the court,......