Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

405 So. 2d 55

Taylor v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Decided October 6, 1981

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · decided 1981-10-06

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently September 1991

11 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“In revoking probation a trial judge must make a written statement as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for revoking probation.”

quoted by 5 later decisions, including Mathis v. State, 454 So. 2d 1048 - Joiner v. State

“requirement could be satisfied by reference to the transcript itself. Id. at 1049. In so deciding, this court concluded: We cannot agree with the State that a transcript of the testimony given in a revocation hearing satisfies this requirement. This court has stated that the lower court's written statement enumerating the evidence relied on and the reasons for parole revocation”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 470 So. 2d 1360 - Salter v. State

Relies on Gagnon v. Scarpelli · Armstrong v. State · 389 So. 2d 601 - Carter v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1981-10-06

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1

¶2This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court revoking the appellant's probation. The Attorney General, the appellee, has declined to file a brief "on the basis that the learned trial judge did not make a *56 written statement as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for revoking Appellant's probation as required by the Alabama Supreme Court in Armstrong v. State, 294 Ala. 100,312 So.2d 620 (1975) in the interpretation of Gagnon v. Scarpelli,411 U.S. 778, 93 S.Ct. 1756, 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973)."

¶3Our review shows that the requirements of Armstrong, supra, have not been satisfied. In revoking probation, a trial judgemust make a written statement as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for revoking probation. Armstrong, 294 Ala. at 103,312 So.2d 620. See also Carter v. State, 389 So.2d 601 (Ala.Cr.App. 1980); Borst v. State, 377 So.2d 3 (Ala.Cr.App. 1979); Austin v. State, 375 So.2d 1295 (Ala.Cr.App. 1979);Levert v. State, 373 So.2d 1263 (Ala.Cr.App. 1979); Jenkins v.State, 368 So.2d 329 (Ala.Cr.App. 1979).

¶4The judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed and the cause remanded.

¶5REVERSED AND REMANDED.

¶6All Judges concur.

/405/so2d/55 · .json · Public domain