Young v. State
| Decision Date | 13 February 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 59102,59102 |
| Citation | 153 Ga.App. 454,265 S.E.2d 362 |
| Parties | YOUNG v. The STATE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
G. F. Peterman, III, Macon, for appellant.
W. Donald Thompson, Dist. Atty., for appellee.
Following a plea of guilty as to robbery by intimidation the defendant herein was sentenced to confinement for a period of 15 years, providing that after service of the first 4 year portion thereof the balance of 11 years was to be probated upon the express conditions set forth. On May 17, 1979, a show cause order was issued in which it was contended that the defendant had failed and refused to comply with the terms and conditions upon which probation was allowed, that is: "The probationer committed the offense of Armed Robbery at the Butler House on Washington Avenue, Macon, Georgia, on or about March 25, 1979." The probated sentence was revoked on August 3, 1979, after a hearing. Defendant appeals. Held:
The sole enumeration of error is that the trial court erred in revoking defendant's probation in that there was insufficient credible evidence to legally warrant a revocation. Only slight evidence will support a judgment of revocation. Johnson v. State, 142 Ga.App. 124(1), 235 S.E.2d 550. But, of course, there must be some evidence that the defendant violated the terms of his probated sentence as charged in the notice given him of the revocation hearing. See Gay v. State, 101 Ga.App. 225, 113 S.E.2d 223 and Ware v. State, 137 Ga.App. 673, 224 S.E.2d 873. Here the evidence with reference to the commission of the armed robbery is slight and based upon circumstantial evidence connecting the defendant with the commission of the crime. Defendant's main contention is that the witnesses used against him were convicted felons, and the credit which the trial court should give to this testimony was questionable. The victims of the armed robbery did not identify him as one of the two persons who robbed them. However, the other witnesses (convicted felons) were shown to be persons with whom he was associated who testified as to his activities on the day that the robbery occurred, placed him near the scene of the robbery and testified also of his possession of some items similar to those taken in the robbery as well as his admission that "he made a lick" in gaining possession of them. One of the state's witnesses testified the defendant had stated to him "he made a lick" at the Butler House. The credibility of these witnesses was for the trial court as the trier of fact. Code § 38-1805; Burns v. State, 145 Ga.App....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bentley v. McSwain
... ... both parties were residents of Gwinnett County, Georgia, although there was some evidence that the father had been sojourning or working in the State of Tennessee during the year 1978. The mother testified that the last payment of support was on March 22, 1978, and that no other payments were ... 5, 189 S.E.2d 882; Nix v. Sanders, 136 Ga.App. 859, 860, 223 S.E.2d 21; Carpenter v. Forshee, 103 Ga.App. 758, 120 S.E.2d 786; Young v. Foster, 148 Ga.App. 737, 739(4, 5), 252 S.E.2d 680 ... While the evidence was such that the court could have found that the ... ...
-
Smith v. State
... ... The hearing was in full compliance with the standards set forth in relevant statutory and case law. See Ga.Code Ann. § 27-2713; Young v. State, 153 Ga.App ... 454, 265 S.E.2d 362 (1980); Wilson v. State, 152 Ga.App. 695, 263 S.E.2d 691 (1979); Ware v. State, supra ... ...
-
Maxwell v. State, A04A0006.
...312-313(3), 567 S.E.2d 1 (2002). 11. Edge, supra. 12. See Render v. State, 267 Ga. 848, 483 S.E.2d 570 (1997); Young v. State, 153 Ga.App. 454, 455, 265 S.E.2d 362 (1980). 13. Hayes v. State, 249 Ga.App. 857, 865(7), 549 S.E.2d 813 ...
-
Benford v. State, 66831
...come from, and where he was going. Only slight evidence is necessary to support a judgment of probation revocation. Young v. State, 153 Ga.App. 454, 265 S.E.2d 362 (1980). The evidence in the instant case was sufficient to authorize the revocation of appellant's 2. Appellant further asserts......