" Armstrong v. State, 55 Ala. App. 37, at 45, 312 So.2d 607, at 615 (Ala.Crim.App. 1974). Accordingly, the fact that the petitioner's conviction was reversed subsequent to the revocation of his probation is of no consequence in the present case, because the trial court was reasonably satisfied from the evidence that the petitioner was in violation of his probation.

Petitioner appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals from an order of the Circuit Court revoking his probation. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, 54 Ala.App. ___, 312 So.2d 607. We granted certiorari.

Therefore, evidence which would be considered inadmissible in a criminal prosecution may be considered in either probation or parole hearings. Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 93 S.Ct. 1756, 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973); Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972); Armstrong v. State, 55 Ala. App. 37, 312 So.2d 607 (Ala.Cr.App. 1974), aff'd. in part, rev'd. in unrelated part, 294 Ala. 100, 312 So.2d 620 (1975). A probation revocation hearing is held for the purpose of determining whether a probationer's good behavior has been tainted by bad conduct at some point in time during his probation.

Appellant first contends that he received insufficient notice of the probation violation with which he was charged. He cites the due process requirements and guidelines as set out in Armstrong v. State, 55 Ala. App. 37, 312 So.2d 607 (1974), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 294 Ala. 100, 312 So.2d 620, on remand, 55 Ala. App. 717, 312 So.2d 632 (1975). Armstrong, of course, incorporates the procedural guidelines set out in Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972) and Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 93 S.Ct. 1756, 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973).

"We are not prepared to say that any given quantity of marihuana possessed marks a line between possession for personal use and possession for such other purpose as sale, barter, or gift." Corbin, supra, 55 Ala. App. 36, 312 So.2d 607. Yet, the smaller the quantity of marijuana possessed, the more consistent it would be with personal use. Compare Powers, supra, where there was testimony that a matchbox of marijuana was the quantity "common for personal use", and Osner v. State, 54 Ala. App. 520, 310 So.2d 241 (1974) stating: "To indulge in the speculation that 800 pounds of marijuana is for personal use only is to strain credulity almost to the breaking point".

After remand following reversal in part of 294 Ala. 100, 312 So.2d 620. It is ordered that the judgment of the Circuit Court be reversed and remanded on authority of Armstrong v. State, 55 Ala. App. 37, 312 So.2d 607, released March 13, 1975. (No opinion) Per Curiam.