White v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

White v. State

389 So. 2d 956, 1980 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 1111

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

DecidedJanuary 22, 1980

Docket8 Div. 298

StatusPublished

This text of 389 So. 2d 956 (White 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

White v. State, 389 So. 2d 956, 1980 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 1111 (Ala. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinions

BOWEN, Judge.

This is an appeal from a revocation of probation. On May 9, 1975, the defendant was arraigned as a youthful offender and placed on probation for a period of three years. This probation was revoked on September 21, 1979, apparently for the defendant’s failure to report.

Before probation may be revoked, the probationer must be afforded the minimum standards of due process. Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972); Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 93 S.Ct. 1756, 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973). Our Supreme Court set out its interpretation of the Morrissey and Gagnon guidelines in Armstrong v. State, 294 Ala. 100, 312 So.2d 620 (1975). Jenkins v. State, 368 So.2d 329 (Ala.Cr.App.1979).

The record before this Court does not show that each and every guideline has been complied with. From this record we cannot tell with any degree of certainty whether the trial court failed to follow the mandate of Armstrong or whether the rec[957]*957ord simply fails to show that the mandate was followed. For this reason we remand this cause to the Circuit Court of Madison County with directions that a hearing be held to determine whether or not the defendant was afforded minimum due process as defined in Armstrong. The trial judge is directed to make a written determination of whether and how each factor of Armstrong has been satisfied. If the trial judge determines that the requirements of Armstrong have not been met, the defendant must be given a new probation revocation hearing. Austin v. State, 375 So.2d 1295 (Ala.Cr.App. 1979).

REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

All Judges concur.

ON RETURN TO REMAND

After considering the order of the Circuit Court submitted on return to remand, it is apparent that the defendant was given a new probation revocation hearing. The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

All Judges concur.

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

BOWEN, Judge.

This is an appeal from a revocation of probation. On May 9, 1975, the defendant was arraigned as a youthful offender and placed on probation for a period of three years. This probation was revoked on September 21, 1979, apparently for the defendant’s failure to report.

Before probation may be revoked, the probationer must be afforded the minimum standards of due process. Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972); Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 93 S.Ct. 1756, 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973). Our Supreme Court set out its interpretation of the Morrissey and Gagnon guidelines in Armstrong v. State, 294 Ala. 100, 312 So.2d 620 (1975). Jenkins v. State, 368 So.2d 329 (Ala.Cr.App.1979).

The record before this Court does not show that each and every guideline has been complied with. From this record we cannot tell with any degree of certainty whether the trial court failed to follow the mandate of Armstrong or whether the rec[957]*957ord simply fails to show that the mandate was followed. For this reason we remand this cause to the Circuit Court of Madison County with directions that a hearing be held to determine whether or not the defendant was afforded minimum due process as defined in Armstrong. The trial judge is directed to make a written determination of whether and how each factor of Armstrong has been satisfied. If the trial judge determines that the requirements of Armstrong have not been met, the defendant must be given a new probation revocation hearing. Austin v. State, 375 So.2d 1295 (Ala.Cr.App. 1979).

REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

All Judges concur.

ON RETURN TO REMAND

After considering the order of the Circuit Court submitted on return to remand, it is apparent that the defendant was given a new probation revocation hearing. The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

All Judges concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

389 So. 2d 956, 1980 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 1111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-state-alacrimapp-1980.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack