McCoo v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

McCoo v. State

921 So. 2d 464, 2005 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 166, 2005 WL 2046336

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedAugust 26, 2005

DocketCR-03-0509

StatusPublished

This text of 921 So. 2d 464 (McCoo 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

McCoo v. State, 921 So. 2d 464, 2005 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 166, 2005 WL 2046336 (Ala. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

On Remand from the Alabama Supreme Court

McMILLAN, Presiding Judge.

Pursuant to the Alabama Supreme Court’s holding in McCoo v. State, 921 So.2d 450 (Ala.2005), this Court has reviewed both the order and the record concerning the reason the trial court had and the evidence it relied on in revoking Carl Ray McCoo’s probation. The evidence presented at the revocation hearing was fully stated in our original opinion as was the contents of the trial court’s written order. McCoo v. State, 921 So.2d 446 (Ala.Crim.App.2004). It is clear that there was sufficient evidence presented of the robbery, which was the reason for the revocation, by the investigating officer, who was the sole witness at the revocation hearing, to support the trial court’s decision. Therefore, the revocation in this case was proper. Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 93 S.Ct. 1756, 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973); Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972).

AFFIRMED.

COBB, BASCHAB, SHAW, and WISE, JJ., concur.

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

On Remand from the Alabama Supreme Court

McMILLAN, Presiding Judge.

Pursuant to the Alabama Supreme Court’s holding in McCoo v. State, 921 So.2d 450 (Ala.2005), this Court has reviewed both the order and the record concerning the reason the trial court had and the evidence it relied on in revoking Carl Ray McCoo’s probation. The evidence presented at the revocation hearing was fully stated in our original opinion as was the contents of the trial court’s written order. McCoo v. State, 921 So.2d 446 (Ala.Crim.App.2004). It is clear that there was sufficient evidence presented of the robbery, which was the reason for the revocation, by the investigating officer, who was the sole witness at the revocation hearing, to support the trial court’s decision. Therefore, the revocation in this case was proper. Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 93 S.Ct. 1756, 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973); Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972).

AFFIRMED.

COBB, BASCHAB, SHAW, and WISE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

921 So. 2d 464, 2005 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 166, 2005 WL 2046336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccoo-v-state-alacrimapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack