People v. Acosta

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Acosta

237 N.W.2d 601, 65 Mich. App. 640, 1975 Mich. App. LEXIS 1003

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 14, 1975

DocketDocket 21633

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 237 N.W.2d 601 (People v. Acosta) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Acosta, 237 N.W.2d 601, 65 Mich. App. 640, 1975 Mich. App. LEXIS 1003 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

On April 19, 1973, defendant pled guilty to unlawfully taking and using a motor vehicle, MCLA 750.414; MSA 28.646. He was sentenced to a term of two years probation. On September 19, 1974, defendant was found guilty of violating probation and was sentenced to a term of one year and four months to two years. Defendant appeals as of right.

While defendant raises several issues on appeal, we find one to be dispositive. The notice of probation violation charged defendant with having been present in an automobile containing a shotgun and ammunition. The basis of the trial court’s revocation order, however, was defendant’s anti-social conduct. Assuming arguendo that defendant was properly notified of the initial charge, defendant had no notice that he was expected to meet a charge of anti-social behavior. While the trial court’s finding may be viewed as a mere characterization of the conduct contained in the charge, we have previously held that a probationer must have notice of the specific violation charged and the revocation hearing is to be restricted thereto. People v Elbert, 21 Mich App 677; 176 NW2d 467 (1970), People v Davenport, 7 Mich App 613; 152 NW2d 553 (1967).

In the instant case, the trial court exceeded the proper scope of the hearing. Defendant’s conviction therefore, must be reversed.

The order revoking defendant’s probation is set aside, the sentence vacated, and the defendant is remanded to the custody of recorder’s court without prejudice on the part of the court to conduct a hearing after defendant is given a written copy of the probation violation charges that he is required to meet.

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

Per Curiam.

On April 19, 1973, defendant pled guilty to unlawfully taking and using a motor vehicle, MCLA 750.414; MSA 28.646. He was sentenced to a term of two years probation. On September 19, 1974, defendant was found guilty of violating probation and was sentenced to a term of one year and four months to two years. Defendant appeals as of right.

While defendant raises several issues on appeal, we find one to be dispositive. The notice of probation violation charged defendant with having been present in an automobile containing a shotgun and ammunition. The basis of the trial court’s revocation order, however, was defendant’s anti-social conduct. Assuming arguendo that defendant was properly notified of the initial charge, defendant had no notice that he was expected to meet a charge of anti-social behavior. While the trial court’s finding may be viewed as a mere characterization of the conduct contained in the charge, we have previously held that a probationer must have notice of the specific violation charged and the revocation hearing is to be restricted thereto. People v Elbert, 21 Mich App 677; 176 NW2d 467 (1970), People v Davenport, 7 Mich App 613; 152 NW2d 553 (1967).

In the instant case, the trial court exceeded the proper scope of the hearing. Defendant’s conviction therefore, must be reversed.

The order revoking defendant’s probation is set aside, the sentence vacated, and the defendant is remanded to the custody of recorder’s court without prejudice on the part of the court to conduct a hearing after defendant is given a written copy of the probation violation charges that he is required to meet.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

237 N.W.2d 601, 65 Mich. App. 640, 1975 Mich. App. LEXIS 1003, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-acosta-michctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack