James v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

James v. State

659 So. 2d 989, 1995 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 80, 1995 WL 168764

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedMarch 3, 1995

DocketCR-93-708

StatusPublished

This text of 659 So. 2d 989 (James 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

James v. State, 659 So. 2d 989, 1995 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 80, 1995 WL 168764 (Ala. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

ON RETURN TO REMAND

McMILLAN, Judge.

We remanded this cause for the trial court to state the evidence it relied upon in revoking the appellant’s probation and its reasons for the revocation. The trial court has now filed its return, which states, in pertinent part, that the revocation was based upon evidence that the appellant was arrested. There was testimony at the revocation hearing to the effect: (1) that on or about October 2, 1993, the appellant was in possession of a loaded pistol; (2) that he concealed this weapon in his right front pocket; and (3) that he was so intoxicated that he was a danger to himself or to others. The trial court states as the reason for the revocation that each of these offenses was a “violation of the law.”

The appellant contended that his arrest on the first two of these offenses was illegal, because it was the result of an allegedly improper search. However, because the trial court need be only reasonably satisfied that the charges are true in order to revoke a defendant’s probation, Smith v. State, 445 So.2d 573 (Ma.Cr.App.1984), and because the [990]*990evidence of the third charge was uncontested, the trial court’s order of revocation was proper. The judgment of the trial court is due to be, and it is hereby, affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

All Judges concur.

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

ON RETURN TO REMAND

McMILLAN, Judge.

We remanded this cause for the trial court to state the evidence it relied upon in revoking the appellant’s probation and its reasons for the revocation. The trial court has now filed its return, which states, in pertinent part, that the revocation was based upon evidence that the appellant was arrested. There was testimony at the revocation hearing to the effect: (1) that on or about October 2, 1993, the appellant was in possession of a loaded pistol; (2) that he concealed this weapon in his right front pocket; and (3) that he was so intoxicated that he was a danger to himself or to others. The trial court states as the reason for the revocation that each of these offenses was a “violation of the law.”

The appellant contended that his arrest on the first two of these offenses was illegal, because it was the result of an allegedly improper search. However, because the trial court need be only reasonably satisfied that the charges are true in order to revoke a defendant’s probation, Smith v. State, 445 So.2d 573 (Ma.Cr.App.1984), and because the [990]*990evidence of the third charge was uncontested, the trial court’s order of revocation was proper. The judgment of the trial court is due to be, and it is hereby, affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

All Judges concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

659 So. 2d 989, 1995 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 80, 1995 WL 168764, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/james-v-state-alacrimapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack