. See also Wright v. State, 292 So.3d 1136, 1139 (Ala.Crim.App.2019) (reversing the circuit court's revocation of [a probationer's] probation for committing a new offense because the nonhearsay evidence that [the probationer] was merely present at a party at the time a shooting occurred did not sufficiently connect him to the alleged murder); and Miller v. State, 273 So.3d 921, 925 (Ala.Crim.App.2018) (reversing the circuit court's revocation of [a probationer's] probation because 'the State failed to present any nonhearsay evidence indicating that [the probationer] had, in fact, committed the alleged arson')."
163 So.3d at 1006. See also Wright v. State, 292 So.3d 1136, 1139 (Ala.Crim.App.2019) (reversing the circuit court's revocation of Wright's probation for committing a new offense because the nonhearsay evidence that Wright was merely present at a party at the time a shooting occurred did not sufficiently connect him to the alleged murder); and Miller v. State, 273 So.3d 921, 925 (Ala.Crim.App.2018) (reversing the circuit court's revocation of Miller's probation because 'the State failed to present any
There are two well settled principles, among others, that are applicable in probation-revocation proceedings: the circuit court is the sole fact-finder, Smiley v. State, 52 So. 3d 565, 568 (Ala. 2010), and, to revoke probation, the circuit court must make a specific finding indicating that the court is " ‘reasonably satisfied from the evidence that the probationer has violated the conditions of his probation.’ " Miller v. State, 273 So. 3d 921, 924 (Ala. Crim. App. 2018) (quoting Puckett v. State, 680 So. 2d 980, 982 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996) ). Here, the Court affirms the order revoking Toombs's probation after concluding that there was sufficient evidence from which the circuit court could have been reasonably satisfied that Toombs had committed at least two of the new offenses with which he had been charged.
163 So. 3d at 1006. See also Wright v. State, 292 So.3d 1136, 1139 (Ala. Crim. App. 2019) (reversing the circuit court's revocation of Wright's probation for committing a new offense because the nonhearsay evidence that Wright was merely present at a party at the time a shooting occurred did not sufficiently connect him to the alleged murder); and Miller v. State, 273 So.3d 921, 925 (Ala. Crim. App. 2018) (reversing the circuit court's revocation of Miller's probation because "the State failed to present any nonhearsay evidence indicating that Miller had, in fact, committed the alleged arson"). In sum, Sams and Dunn establish that hearsay is admissible at a probation-revocation hearing to show that a defendant committed a new offense and that the circuit court can rely on hearsay to revoke a defendant's probation.