Powell v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Decided August 20, 1985

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama · decided 1985-08-20

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently April 1994

3 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“A trial court may not properly revoke probation on the basis of a prior conviction without first affirmatively establishing that the probationer was represented by counsel or intelligently waived counsel at the time of entering the guilty plea. Hollingsworth [ v. State , 410 So.2d 133 (Ala.Cr.App. 1981), cert. quashed, 410 So.2d 134 (Ala. 1982)].”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Robinson v. State

“the evidence relied on in revoking the probation,”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 485 So. 2d 379 - Powell v. State

Relies on Armstrong v. State · 410 So. 2d 133 - Hollingsworth v. State · Ex Parte State, Ex Rel. Attorney General

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1985-08-20

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

BOWEN, Presiding Judge.

¶1The revocation of the probation of John R. Powell is due to be reversed on authority of Hollingsworth v. State, 410 So.2d 133 (Ala.Cr.App.1981), cert. quashed, 410 So.2d 134 (Ala.1982). A trial court may not properly revoke probation on the basis of a prior conviction without first affirmatively establishing that the probationer was represented by counsel or intelligently waived counsel at the time of entering the guilty plea. Hollingsworth, supra. Additionally, the record does not contain a written statement by the judge as to the evidence relied on in revoking the probation. Armstrong v. State, 294 Ala. 100, 312 So.2d 620 (1975).

¶2The judgment of the circuit court revoking Powell’s probation is reversed and this cause is remanded.

¶3REVERSED AND REMANDED.

All Judges concur.