People ex Rel. Gallagher v. Dist. Ct.

3 Citing cases

  1. Byrd v. People

    58 P.3d 50 (Colo. 2002)   Cited 37 times
    Discussing probation revocation proceedings

    The purpose of a probation revocation hearing is to consider the conduct of the defendant after an adjudication of guilt and to assess the correctness of the original sentence. People ex. rel. Gallagher v. District Court, 196 Colo. 499, 502, 591 P.2d 1015, 1017 (1978). Probation is a privilege, not a right, and if a probationer violates any probationary condition, her probation may be revoked.

  2. State v. Brunet

    174 Vt. 135 (Vt. 2002)   Cited 16 times
    Observing that the "lower standard of proof necessary to establish a violation may also diminish the State's incentive to gather and present all of the potentially available evidence at the probation hearing"

    As we have explained, "The purpose of a revocation hearing is not to determine defendant's culpability, but rather to decide `whether the alternatives to incarceration which have been made available to a defendant remain viable for him.'" State v. Lockwood, 160 Vt. 547, 552, 632 A.2d 655, 659 (1993) (quoting People ex rel. Gallagher v. District Court, 591 P.2d 1015, 1017 (Colo. 1978) (en banc)); see also Terry, 620 N.W.2d at 221 (noting that substantial procedural differences between revocation proceeding and criminal trial "`reflect substantial differences between the interests involved in parole revocation and those in a criminal prosecution'") (quoting State ex rel. Flowers v. DHSS, 260 N.W.2d 727, 732 (Wis. 1978)). The goal of a revocation hearing is to not to decide guilt or innocence, but to determine whether the defendant remains a good risk for probation.

  3. Merle v. U.S.

    683 A.2d 755 (D.C. 1996)   Cited 5 times

    See id. at 1390-1391 n. 17.Trumbly v. State, 515 P.2d 707 (Alaska 1973); State v. O'Meal, 116 Ariz. 307, 569 P.2d 249 (1977); People v. Breaux, 101 Cal.App.3d 468, 161 Cal.Rptr. 653 (1980) (collecting cases); People ex rel. Gallagher v. District Court, 196 Colo. 499, 591 P.2d 1015 (1978); People v. Prusak, 200 Ill. App.3d 146, 146 Ill.Dec. 733, 558 N.E.2d 696 (1990); State v. Qualls, 50 Ohio App.3d 56, 552 N.E.2d 957 (1988); State v. Johnson, 9 Wn. App. 766, 514 P.2d 1073 (1973); State ex rel. Lyons v. Department of Health Social Services, 105 Wis.2d 146, 312 N.W.2d 868 (1981).Knight v. Estelle, 501 F.2d 963, 965 (5th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 1000, 95 S.Ct. 2399, 44 L.Ed.2d 668 (1975) (insanity not a defense to charge of parole violation).