Tucker v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Tucker v. State

276 S.E.2d 842, 157 Ga. App. 202, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 1737

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 5, 1981

Docket60706

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 276 S.E.2d 842 (Tucker v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tucker v. State, 276 S.E.2d 842, 157 Ga. App. 202, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 1737 (Ga. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Sognier, Judge.

Tucker appeals from an order revoking his probation, contending there was no evidence to support the revocation order.

In November, 1961 appellant was convicted of four counts of robbery. He was sentenced to 10 years confinement on the first count and 10 years probation on each remaining count, the probation on each count to run consecutively to the confinement and to each successive period of probation. On March 19, 1980 appellant’s probation officer filed a petition for revocation of probation, alleging [203]*203that Tucker violated his probation by failing to report (to the probation officer) as directed by the court, and by being convicted of armed robbery in DeKalb County Superior Court in March, 1980.

Decided January 5, 1981 Rehearing denied January 22, 1981. J. Douglas Willix, for appellant. Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, Joseph J. Drolet, R. Andrew Weathers, H. Allen Moye, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.

Tucker appeals, contending there is insufficient evidence to support the revocation of his probation.

In Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471 (92 SC 2593, 33 LE2d 484) (1972) the United States Supreme Court set forth certain criteria which must be met in revocation of parole cases to meet minimum due process requirements. One of those requirements is that the fact-finder in a revocation of parole hearing shall make a written statement setting forth the evidence relied on and the reasons for revoking parole. Id., at 489. Morrissey also required the hearing officer to make á summitry, or digest, of what occurs at the [revocation] hearing in terms of responses of the parolee, and the substance of documents or evidence given in support of parole revocation and of the parolee’s position. Id., at 487. The United States Supreme Court subsequently held that the same requirements apply to revocation of probation proceedings, Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U. S. 778 (93 SC 1756, 36 LE2d 656) (1973) and this court has adopted the same requirements. Reed v. State, 151 Ga. App. 226 (259 SE2d 209) (1979); Moore v. State, 151 Ga. App. 791 (261 SE2d 730) (1979).

In the instant case there is no transcript or summary of the evidence, and no written findings of fact setting forth the evidence relied on and the reasons for revoking probation. Accordingly, this case is reversed and remanded for compliance with the rules set forth above.

Judgment reversed.

Deen, P. J., and Birdsong, J., concur.

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

Sognier, Judge.

Tucker appeals from an order revoking his probation, contending there was no evidence to support the revocation order.

In November, 1961 appellant was convicted of four counts of robbery. He was sentenced to 10 years confinement on the first count and 10 years probation on each remaining count, the probation on each count to run consecutively to the confinement and to each successive period of probation. On March 19, 1980 appellant’s probation officer filed a petition for revocation of probation, alleging [203]*203that Tucker violated his probation by failing to report (to the probation officer) as directed by the court, and by being convicted of armed robbery in DeKalb County Superior Court in March, 1980.

Decided January 5, 1981 Rehearing denied January 22, 1981. J. Douglas Willix, for appellant. Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, Joseph J. Drolet, R. Andrew Weathers, H. Allen Moye, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellee.

Tucker appeals, contending there is insufficient evidence to support the revocation of his probation.

In Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471 (92 SC 2593, 33 LE2d 484) (1972) the United States Supreme Court set forth certain criteria which must be met in revocation of parole cases to meet minimum due process requirements. One of those requirements is that the fact-finder in a revocation of parole hearing shall make a written statement setting forth the evidence relied on and the reasons for revoking parole. Id., at 489. Morrissey also required the hearing officer to make á summitry, or digest, of what occurs at the [revocation] hearing in terms of responses of the parolee, and the substance of documents or evidence given in support of parole revocation and of the parolee’s position. Id., at 487. The United States Supreme Court subsequently held that the same requirements apply to revocation of probation proceedings, Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U. S. 778 (93 SC 1756, 36 LE2d 656) (1973) and this court has adopted the same requirements. Reed v. State, 151 Ga. App. 226 (259 SE2d 209) (1979); Moore v. State, 151 Ga. App. 791 (261 SE2d 730) (1979).

In the instant case there is no transcript or summary of the evidence, and no written findings of fact setting forth the evidence relied on and the reasons for revoking probation. Accordingly, this case is reversed and remanded for compliance with the rules set forth above.

Judgment reversed.

Deen, P. J., and Birdsong, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

276 S.E.2d 842, 157 Ga. App. 202, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 1737, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tucker-v-state-gactapp-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack