Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

399 So. 2d 934

Touch v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Decided May 26, 1981

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · decided 1981-05-26

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“We hold, therefore, that where, as here, Defendant commits a felony while under a probationary sentence, although prior to the effective date of the probationary portion of the sentence, and its terms and conditions are not yet expressly prescribed, the sentencing court is nevertheless authorized to revoke Defendant’s probation for violation of a condition implicit in every suspended or probationary sentence: that Defendant, while under such sentence, will not commit another criminal offense. In other words, the trial court did not err in finding that Defendant violated an implied condition of his probation when he committed the offense of grand larceny in Madison County. ******”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Matthews v. State

Relies on 395 So. 2d 1054 - Wilcox v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1981-05-26

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently May 2009

7 state decisions

40198119902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1

¶2Revocation of probation.

¶3On September 18, 1979, appellant was convicted on guilty pleas of four charges of robbery. On November 2, 1979, he was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment on each count. On November 16, 1979, the trial court reduced the sentence in each case to twelve months in the penitentiary and three years on probation with "probation to start upon date of release." All sentences were to run concurrently.

¶4The State's evidence indicated that on June 29, 1980, while serving his sentence at the Camden Work Release Center, the appellant was caught in possession of a small plastic bag containing marijuana. During the revocation hearing, the appellant admitted possessing the marijuana, but contended that he had just found the bag and was examining it when the guard confronted him. The trial judge, sitting as the trier of fact at the revocation hearing, found that the appellant had violated the Uniform Controlled Substances Act in possessing the marijuana. Probation was therefore revoked.

¶5The issue before this court is whether probation can be revoked for an offense committed by the probationer while incarcerated and before the probationary period of his sentence begins. We conclude that the trial court was acting within its lawful authority in revoking the appellant's probation under the instant circumstances. Dispositive of this issue is the case of Ex parte State, ex rel. Attorney General (In re: EddieDean Wilcox v. State), Ala., 395 So.2d 1054 (1981), wherein our supreme court stated:

¶6 "We hold, therefore, that where, as here, Defendant commits a felony while under a probationary sentence, although prior to the effective date of the probationary portion of the sentence, and its terms and conditions are not yet expressly prescribed, the sentencing court is nevertheless authorized to revoke Defendant's probation for violation of a condition implicit in every suspended or probationary sentence: that Defendant, while under such sentence, will not commit another criminal offense. . . ." (Emphasis added.)

¶7AFFIRMED.

¶8All the Judges concur.

/399/so2d/934 · .json · Public domain