McCoo v. State

921 So. 2d 464, 2005 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 166, 2005 WL 2046336
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in McCoo v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 921 So. 2d 446
Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama·Decided August 26, 2005·No. CR-03-0509·Published

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

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

921 So. 2d 464 (McCoo v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Morrissey v. Brewer
408 U.S. 471 (Supreme Court, 1972)
Gagnon v. Scarpelli
411 U.S. 778 (Supreme Court, 1973)
McCoo v. State
921 So. 2d 446 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama, 2004)
Ex Parte State
921 So. 2d 450 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2005)