Widner v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Widner v. State

223 S.E.2d 278, 137 Ga. App. 244, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 2396

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJanuary 8, 1976

Docket51327

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 223 S.E.2d 278 (Widner 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

Widner v. State, 223 S.E.2d 278, 137 Ga. App. 244, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 2396 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Clark, Judge.

In this appeal from the revocation of defendant’s probation, the sole issue is whether the state’s evidence was sufficient to authorize the probation judge’s finding that defendant had committed a burglary.

We summarize the state’s evidence presented at the probation hearing as follows: On June 16,1975, the home of Medford Blissett was broken into and several items, including two prescription bottles and a ring, were stolen. The perpetrator entered the dwelling through a window which he smashed in the process. The defendant was *245 apprehended standing by his car one-quarter mile from the Blissett residence, less than ten minutes after the burglary. The prescription bottles and the ring were recovered from a ditch approximately four feet from where defendant was standing. An examination of defendant’s shoes revealed the presence of bits of glass. In addition, fuzz found in two areas of the Blissett home matched the material of defendant’s socks, which he was not wearing at the time of his apprehension. (The inference here apparently is that defendant used his socks as a substitute for gloves to prevent fingerprint identification.) The authorities also discovered burglar’s tools in defendant’s vehicle.

Argued October 9, 1975 Decided January 8, 1976. Warren Akin, William Morgan Akin, for appellant. David N. Vaughn, Jr.,District Attorney, for appellee.

The evidence presented, while circumstantial, was sufficient to satisfy the requisite burden of proof applicable to probation revocation hearings. See Sellers v. State, 107 Ga. App. 516 (130 SE2d 790); Boston v. State, 128 Ga. App. 576 (197 SE2d 504). Accordingly, defendant’s enumeration on the general grounds is without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

Pannell, P. J., and Quillian, J., concur.

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

Clark, Judge.

In this appeal from the revocation of defendant’s probation, the sole issue is whether the state’s evidence was sufficient to authorize the probation judge’s finding that defendant had committed a burglary.

We summarize the state’s evidence presented at the probation hearing as follows: On June 16,1975, the home of Medford Blissett was broken into and several items, including two prescription bottles and a ring, were stolen. The perpetrator entered the dwelling through a window which he smashed in the process. The defendant was *245 apprehended standing by his car one-quarter mile from the Blissett residence, less than ten minutes after the burglary. The prescription bottles and the ring were recovered from a ditch approximately four feet from where defendant was standing. An examination of defendant’s shoes revealed the presence of bits of glass. In addition, fuzz found in two areas of the Blissett home matched the material of defendant’s socks, which he was not wearing at the time of his apprehension. (The inference here apparently is that defendant used his socks as a substitute for gloves to prevent fingerprint identification.) The authorities also discovered burglar’s tools in defendant’s vehicle.

Argued October 9, 1975 Decided January 8, 1976. Warren Akin, William Morgan Akin, for appellant. David N. Vaughn, Jr.,District Attorney, for appellee.

The evidence presented, while circumstantial, was sufficient to satisfy the requisite burden of proof applicable to probation revocation hearings. See Sellers v. State, 107 Ga. App. 516 (130 SE2d 790); Boston v. State, 128 Ga. App. 576 (197 SE2d 504). Accordingly, defendant’s enumeration on the general grounds is without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

Pannell, P. J., and Quillian, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 S.E.2d 278, 137 Ga. App. 244, 1976 Ga. App. LEXIS 2396, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/widner-v-state-gactapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack