People v. Stallworth

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Stallworth

309 N.W.2d 561, 107 Mich. App. 754

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 13, 1981

DocketDocket No. 51538

StatusPublished

This text of 309 N.W.2d 561 (People v. Stallworth) 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. Stallworth, 309 N.W.2d 561, 107 Mich. App. 754 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant appeals as of right from an order revoking her probation and sentencing her to a prison term of from 2 to 12 years.

On appeal, defendant argues that she was not advised that she had a right to a contested hearing on the probation revocation. We adhere to the position that the statements in the notice of probation violation or in the bench warrant referring to a "pending violation hearing” may provide sufficient notice of the right to a contested hearing. People v Darrell, 72 Mich App 710, 713; 250 NW2d 751 (1976). However, in the instant case the record is void of the minimal evidence that these documents were ever served upon defendant or otherwise brought to her attention. Absent any evidence that defendant was in some manner made aware of the right to a contested hearing, we must reverse and remand. People v Darrell, supra, People v Brooks, 91 Mich App 624; 283 NW2d 817 (1979).

Reversed and remanded.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant appeals as of right from an order revoking her probation and sentencing her to a prison term of from 2 to 12 years.

On appeal, defendant argues that she was not advised that she had a right to a contested hearing on the probation revocation. We adhere to the position that the statements in the notice of probation violation or in the bench warrant referring to a "pending violation hearing” may provide sufficient notice of the right to a contested hearing. People v Darrell, 72 Mich App 710, 713; 250 NW2d 751 (1976). However, in the instant case the record is void of the minimal evidence that these documents were ever served upon defendant or otherwise brought to her attention. Absent any evidence that defendant was in some manner made aware of the right to a contested hearing, we must reverse and remand. People v Darrell, supra, People v Brooks, 91 Mich App 624; 283 NW2d 817 (1979).

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 N.W.2d 561, 107 Mich. App. 754, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-stallworth-michctapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack