Borst v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Borst v. State

377 So. 2d 3

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedNovember 20, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 377 So. 2d 3 (Borst v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Borst v. State, 377 So. 2d 3 (Ala. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Appellant was convicted on July 14, 1978, on three charges of altering or preventing the action of electric meters in violation of § 13-2-81, Code of Alabama, 1975. He was sentenced to terms of thirty days, sixty days, and eighty days imprisonment in the county jail, and fines of $50.00 and $70.00, *Page 4 with the execution of the sentence suspended for one year.

On April 5, 1979, the district attorney moved to revoke appellant's informal probation. After notice and a hearing on May 18, 1979, the trial court granted the motion to revoke probation and set aside the suspension of sentence. From said revocation of probation, appellant prosecutes this appeal.

A thorough review of the record reveals that there is no "written statement by the trial judge as to the evidence relied on and reasons for revoking probation," as required byArmstrong v. State, 294 Ala. 100, 312 So.2d 620 (1975). Therefore, this case is reversed and remanded on authority ofArmstrong v. State, supra; and Austin v. State, Ala.Cr.App.,375 So.2d 1295 (1979).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

All the Judges concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appellant was convicted on July 14, 1978, on three charges of altering or preventing the action of electric meters in violation of § 13-2-81, Code of Alabama, 1975. He was sentenced to terms of thirty days, sixty days, and eighty days imprisonment in the county jail, and fines of $50.00 and $70.00, *Page 4 with the execution of the sentence suspended for one year.

On April 5, 1979, the district attorney moved to revoke appellant's informal probation. After notice and a hearing on May 18, 1979, the trial court granted the motion to revoke probation and set aside the suspension of sentence. From said revocation of probation, appellant prosecutes this appeal.

A thorough review of the record reveals that there is no "written statement by the trial judge as to the evidence relied on and reasons for revoking probation," as required byArmstrong v. State, 294 Ala. 100, 312 So.2d 620 (1975). Therefore, this case is reversed and remanded on authority ofArmstrong v. State, supra; and Austin v. State, Ala.Cr.App.,375 So.2d 1295 (1979).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

All the Judges concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

377 So. 2d 3, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/borst-v-state-alacrimapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack