Williford v. State, CR-19-0481
| Court | Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals |
| Writing for the Court | McCOOL, Judge. |
| Citation | 329 So.3d 86 |
| Parties | Tiffany Dawn WILLIFORD v. STATE of Alabama |
| Docket Number | CR-19-0481 |
| Decision Date | 16 December 2020 |
329 So.3d 86
Tiffany Dawn WILLIFORD
v.
STATE of Alabama
CR-19-0481
Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.
December 16, 2020
Lisa M. Ivey of Stubbs, Sills & Frye, P.C., Anniston, for appellant.
Steve Marshall, atty. gen., and J. Thomas Leverette, asst. atty. gen, for appellee.
McCOOL, Judge.
Tiffany Dawn Williford appeals the Marion Circuit Court's order revoking her probation. For the reasons set forth herein, we reverse the circuit court's order and remand for further proceedings.
Facts and Procedural History
It appears from the limited record on appeal that in 2018 Williford was convicted of unlawful possession of a controlled substance, a violation of § 13A-12-212, Ala. Code 1975, and of fourth-degree theft of property, a violation of § 13A-8-5, Ala. Code 1975. (C. 5.) It appears that Williford was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment for her unlawful-possession-of-a-controlled-substance conviction and that her sentence was split for her to serve two months’ imprisonment, followed by five years of supervised probation. (C. 5.) As to her theft conviction, it appears that Williford was sentenced to one year of imprisonment, that her sentence was suspended, and that she was ordered to serve a two-year probationary term. (C. 5.)
In November 2019, Williford's probation officer filed a delinquency report alleging that Williford had violated the terms of her probation by absconding. Specifically, the report alleged that Williford had "never reported ... to go over the paperwork," that the probation officer had "mailed two letters to two different addresses instructing [Williford] to report in," that Williford "never reported or called" in response to those letters, that the probation officer had left "a card [at Williford's mother's address] noting for [Williford] to report in ... immediately," that Williford "never did" respond to the card, and that it was therefore "obvious that [Williford was] avoiding supervision." (C. 5.) In December 2019, Williford's probation officer supplemented the delinquency report to allege that Williford had violated the terms of her probation by being arrested and charged with two new counts of unlawful possession of a controlled substance. (C. 7.)
On January 9, 2020, Williford appeared before the circuit court for a hearing, at which the following colloquy occurred:
"THE COURT: Do you understand the violations of your probation that have been alleged against you?
"THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
"THE COURT: Are there any additions or corrections to the report that you would like the Court to consider?
"[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: No, sir.
"THE COURT: Okay. Does the probationer request a formal hearing on these allegations?
"[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: No, sir.
"THE COURT: Do you admit to the violations contained in the report, specifically that it was alleged that you committed the violation of absconding, and there was a supplement to the report. There was a new offense of possession of a controlled substance and a second count of possession of a controlled substance. Do you admit that you received those violations and you were arrested for those charges?
"THE DEFENDANT: I was arrested for those charges. Yes, sir.
"THE COURT: And I'm not asking you to admit that you did it. It's just the fact that you were just arrested for it.
"[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Right. She was arrested, Your Honor. She does have a defense, but she was arrested.
"THE COURT: Okay. So does the probationer request a formal hearing on these allegations?
"[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: No, sir.
"THE COURT: Is this admission voluntary?
"THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
"THE COURT: Has anybody forced or threatened you to get you to admit to it?
"THE DEFENDANT: No.
"THE COURT: All right. Based upon the allegations found in the report admitted to be correct by the probationer, the Court finds to a reasonable satisfaction that the probationer has violated the terms and conditions of her probation by receiving a violation of absconding and being arrested for two new charges, both of which are possession of a controlled substance. Do you have anything to say before sentence is imposed?
"....
"THE DEFENDANT: I didn't -- I don't run from probation, Your Honor. I might have messed up a few times, but I didn't know. I had been in prison since May of 2017, and when I got out, I just assumed -- I guess I was wrong -- that they would let me know what I needed to do when I got out. And I really wasn't planning on coming back to Hamilton, and I didn't come back until after November the 1st to Hamilton, you know, and that's just -- I didn't --
"[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: The address that she had given apparently --
"THE DEFENDANT: I had never been to State probation that I remember, you know, and gave them an -- I don't know where they got the address. I didn't know they were looking for me, you know. I didn't -- I didn't know.
"THE COURT: Well, in the report it says there was a home visit conducted October 24th ... at ... your mother's address --
"THE DEFENDANT: That's not -- my mother lives in Belmont, Mississippi.
"[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Yes, sir, she does.
"THE DEFENDANT: ... That's my child's daddy's address, and I don't wish to have anything to do with him. I haven't had anything to do with him since I've been locked up in prison. So they wouldn't naturally tell me that, you know, I guess --
"[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: The daddy is a convicted felon. It would be a violation of her probation to go back there.
"....
"THE COURT: Okay. Anything else to add, to tell me?
"THE DEFENDANT: Just that I promise I'm not going to abscond or anything if I get reinstated, you know.
"THE COURT: All right. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court finds that confinement is necessary to protect the public from further criminal activity by the probationer and that no measure short of confinement will avoid depreciating the seriousness of the claimed violation, and that the probationer is in need of correctional treatment which can most effectively be provided if she is confined. It is ordered and adjudged that the probationer has violated the conditions of probation as stated in [the delinquency report], and the probationer's probation heretofore granted is revoked."
(R. 5-9.)
On January 21, 2020, the circuit court entered an order revoking Williford's probation and ordering her to serve the balance of her sentences; that order states, in pertinent part:
"[I]t is ordered that the defendant has violated the conditions of probation in that there is reasonable cause to believe that defendant has committed the offense of absconding by never reporting to probation office after release from prison, and possession of controlled substance x 2 (new offenses). The factual
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v. State, CR-19-0469
...that do exist. Mr. Malloy, during his joint interview, he identified, not only himself from the still photographs, but I believe he 329 So.3d 86 identified Mr. Wilson from those still photographs."(R. 27.)Thus, in short, Agent Danunzio testified that the evidence material to the robbery cha......
-
Gann v. State, CR-20-0196
...he did not admit to committing a new offense. In support of his claim, Gann relies on this Court's recent decision in Williford v. State, 329 So. 3d 86 (Ala. Crim. App. 2020).3 337 So.3d 1221 In Williford, the appellant raised the same argument Gann raises here – that an adequate revocation......
-
Nelson v. State, CR-18-1039
...admitted that he had been arrested for new offenses but denied that he had committed the new offenses); and Williford v. State, 329 So. 3d 86 (Ala. Crim. App. 2020) (holding that the probationer did not admit to a violation of her probation when she admitted only that she had been arrested ......
-
Gosa v. State, CR-21-0460
...circuit court did not hold a formal revocation hearing, and he reiterates that argument in his reply brief. Gosa cites Williford v. State, 329 So.3d 86 (Ala.Crim.App.2020) and Wilkerson v. State, [Ms. CR-20-0660, May 27, 2022] ___So. 3d. ___(Ala.Crim.App.2022), in support of his position. I......
-
Wilson v. State, CR-19-0469
...that do exist. Mr. Malloy, during his joint interview, he identified, not only himself from the still photographs, but I believe he 329 So.3d 86 identified Mr. Wilson from those still photographs."(R. 27.)Thus, in short, Agent Danunzio testified that the evidence material to the robbery cha......
-
Gann v. State, CR-20-0196
...he did not admit to committing a new offense. In support of his claim, Gann relies on this Court's recent decision in Williford v. State, 329 So. 3d 86 (Ala. Crim. App. 2020).3 337 So.3d 1221 In Williford, the appellant raised the same argument Gann raises here – that an adequate revocation......
-
Nelson v. State, CR-18-1039
...admitted that he had been arrested for new offenses but denied that he had committed the new offenses); and Williford v. State, 329 So. 3d 86 (Ala. Crim. App. 2020) (holding that the probationer did not admit to a violation of her probation when she admitted only that she had been arrested ......
-
Gosa v. State, CR-21-0460
...circuit court did not hold a formal revocation hearing, and he reiterates that argument in his reply brief. Gosa cites Williford v. State, 329 So.3d 86 (Ala.Crim.App.2020) and Wilkerson v. State, [Ms. CR-20-0660, May 27, 2022] ___So. 3d. ___(Ala.Crim.App.2022), in support of his position. I......