Harris v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Harris v. State

687 So. 2d 1237, 1996 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 31, 1996 WL 55640

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedFebruary 9, 1996

DocketCR-95-0191

StatusPublished

This text of 687 So. 2d 1237 (Harris 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

Harris v. State, 687 So. 2d 1237, 1996 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 31, 1996 WL 55640 (Ala. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

LONG, Judge.

The appellant, Roderick Bernard Harris, appeals from an order revoking his probation. The appellant correctly argues that the trial court failed to make adequate written findings stating its reasons for revoking his [1238]*1238probation or the evidence it relied upon in doing so. Rule 27.6(f), Ala.R.Crim.P.; Armstrong v. State, 294 Ala. 100, 312 So.2d 620 (1975). See Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972); Gagnon v. Scarpelli 411 U.S. 778, 93 S.Ct. 1756, 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973).

The Alabama Supreme Court has held that “Armstrong v. State[, 294 Ala. 100, 312 So.2d 620 (1975),] requires a written order setting forth the evidence relied upon and the reason for the revocation.” Wyatt v. State, 608 So.2d 762, 763 (Ala.1992). This is required even where “the transcript of the proceeding coupled with the order, indicates the evidence relied upon by the trial court and the trial court’s reason for the revocation.” Id. (emphasis added).

This cause is remanded with directions to the trial court to enter an order stating the evidence relied upon and the reasons for the revocation of the appellant’s probation. The trial court shall take necessary action to see that the circuit clerk makes due return to this court at the earliest possible time and within 42 days of the release of this opinion. This court reserves comment on any other issues raised on appeal pending the trial court’s compliance with the directions contained herein and until a proper return is made to this court.

REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

All Judges concur.

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

LONG, Judge.

The appellant, Roderick Bernard Harris, appeals from an order revoking his probation. The appellant correctly argues that the trial court failed to make adequate written findings stating its reasons for revoking his [1238]*1238probation or the evidence it relied upon in doing so. Rule 27.6(f), Ala.R.Crim.P.; Armstrong v. State, 294 Ala. 100, 312 So.2d 620 (1975). See Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972); Gagnon v. Scarpelli 411 U.S. 778, 93 S.Ct. 1756, 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973).

The Alabama Supreme Court has held that “Armstrong v. State[, 294 Ala. 100, 312 So.2d 620 (1975),] requires a written order setting forth the evidence relied upon and the reason for the revocation.” Wyatt v. State, 608 So.2d 762, 763 (Ala.1992). This is required even where “the transcript of the proceeding coupled with the order, indicates the evidence relied upon by the trial court and the trial court’s reason for the revocation.” Id. (emphasis added).

This cause is remanded with directions to the trial court to enter an order stating the evidence relied upon and the reasons for the revocation of the appellant’s probation. The trial court shall take necessary action to see that the circuit clerk makes due return to this court at the earliest possible time and within 42 days of the release of this opinion. This court reserves comment on any other issues raised on appeal pending the trial court’s compliance with the directions contained herein and until a proper return is made to this court.

REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

All Judges concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

687 So. 2d 1237, 1996 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 31, 1996 WL 55640, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-state-alacrimapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack