T.H.B. v. State

40 Citing cases

  1. Hodges v. State

    912 So. 2d 302 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005)   Cited 4 times
    In Hodges v. State, 912 So.2d 302 (Ala.Crim.App.2005), then Judge Shaw—joined by then Judge Wise —argued that an insufficientprobation-revocation order is subject to harmless-error analysis.

    "`In accordance with Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 93 S.Ct. 1756, 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973), Armstrong v. State, 294 Ala. 100, 312 So.2d 620 (1975), and Wyatt v. State, 608 So.2d 762 (Ala. 1992), before probation can be revoked, an Alabama trial court must provide a written order stating the evidence and the reasons relied upon to revoke probation.' Trice v. State, 707 So.2d 294, 295 (Ala.Crim.App. 1997). `These requirements offer the probationer some protection from an abuse of discretion by the trial court, aid an appellate court in reviewing a revocation, and prevent future revocations based on the same conduct.' T.H.B. v. State, 649 So.2d 1323, 1324 (Ala.Cr.App. 1994)."Chenault v. State, 777 So.2d 314, 316-17 (Ala.Crim.App. 2000).

  2. O.T. v. State

    837 So. 2d 327 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002)   Cited 1 times

    "These requirements offer the probationer some protection from an abuse of discretion by the trial court, aid an appellate court in reviewing a revocation, and prevent future revocations based on the same conduct." T.H.B. v. State, 649 So.2d 1323, 1324 (Ala.Crim.App. 1994). In this case, the circuit court's written order stated merely: "Probation revoked for failure to report."

  3. McCoo v. State

    921 So. 2d 450 (Ala. 2005)   Cited 58 times
    Holding that the adequacy of a revocation order hinges on whether the order or the circuit court’s oral findings "unambiguously set forth the reasons for the revocation and the evidence that supported those reasons"

    These requirements offer the probationer some protection from an abuse of discretion by the trial court, aid an appellate court in reviewing a revocation, and prevent future revocations based on the same conduct." T.H.B. v. State, 649 So.2d 1323, 1324 (Ala.Cr.App. 1994).'

  4. Walker v. State

    920 So. 2d 592 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005)   Cited 4 times

    "`In accordance with Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 93 S.Ct. 1756, 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973), Armstrong v. State, 294 Ala. 100, 312 So.2d 620 (1975), and Wyatt v. State, 608 So.2d 762 (Ala. 1992), before probation can be revoked, an Alabama trial court must provide a written order stating the evidence and the reasons relied upon to revoke probation.' Trice v. State, 707 So.2d 294, 295 (Ala.Crim.App. 1997). `These requirements offer the probationer some protection from an abuse of discretion by the trial court, aid an appellate court in reviewing a revocation, and prevent future revocations based on the same conduct.' T.H.B. v. State, 649 So.2d 1323, 1324 (Ala.Cr.App. 1994)."Chenault v. State, 777 So.2d 314, 316-17 (Ala.Crim.App. 2000).

  5. Hill v. State

    923 So. 2d 1142 (Ala. Crim. App. 2005)

    The rationale for this requirement is not only to afford the probationer due process but also to "`offer the probationer some protection from an abuse of discretion by the trial court, aid an appellate court in reviewing a revocation, and prevent future revocations based on the same conduct.'" Williams v. State, 895 So.2d 1012 (Ala.Crim.App. 2004) (quoting, T.H.B. v. State, 649 So.2d 1323, 1324 (Ala.Crim.App. 1994)). I agree that probationers should be assured these protections.

  6. K.W.J. v. State

    905 So. 2d 17 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004)   Cited 3 times

    "`In accordance with Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 93 S.Ct. 1756, 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973), Armstrong v. State, 294 Ala. 100, 312 So.2d 620 (1975), and Wyatt v. State, 608 So.2d 762 (Ala. 1992), before probation can be revoked, an Alabama trial court must provide a written order stating the evidence and the reasons relied upon to revoke probation.' Trice v. State, 707 So.2d 294, 295 (Ala.Crim.App. 1997). `These requirements offer the probationer some protection from an abuse of discretion by the trial court, aid an appellate court in reviewing a revocation, and prevent future revocations based on the same conduct.' T.H.B. v. State, 649 So.2d 1323, 1324 (Ala.Cr.App. 1994)."Chenault v. State, 777 So.2d 314, 316-17 (Ala.Crim.App. 2000).

  7. McGhee v. State

    912 So. 2d 534 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004)   Cited 2 times

    Wyatt v. State, 608 So.2d 762 (Ala. 1992); Armstrong v. State, supra. "These requirements offer the probationer some protection from an abuse of discretion by the trial court, aid an appellate court in reviewing a revocation, and prevent future revocations based on the same conduct." T.H.B. v. State, 649 So.2d 1323, 1324 (Ala.Crim.App. 1994). A written order revoking probation satisfies due-process requirements when that order states that the defendant's probation was revoked because the probationer had been convicted of a new criminal offense.

  8. McCoo v. State

    921 So. 2d 446 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004)   Cited 3 times
    In McCoo, the Court of Criminal Appeals remanded the case for the trial court to enter a probation-revocation order that complied with Wyatt v. State, 608 So.2d 762 (Ala. 1992).

    `These requirements offer the probationer some protection from an abuse of discretion by the trial court, aid an appellate court in reviewing a revocation, and prevent future revocations based on the same conduct.' T.H.B. v. State, 649 So.2d 1323, 1324 (Ala.Cr.App. 1994)."

  9. Williams v. State

    895 So. 2d 1012 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004)   Cited 8 times

    Wyatt v. State, 608 So.2d 762 (Ala. 1992); Armstrong v. State, supra. "These requirements offer the probationer some protection from an abuse of discretion by the trial court, aid an appellate court in reviewing a revocation, and prevent future revocations based on the same conduct." T.H.B. v. State, 649 So.2d 1323, 1324 (Ala.Crim.App. 1994). A written order revoking probation satisfies due-process requirements when that order states that the defendant's probation was revoked because the probationer had been convicted of a new criminal offense.

  10. Salter v. State

    895 So. 2d 394 (Ala. Crim. App. 2004)   Cited 1 times

    "`In accordance with Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 93 S.Ct. 1756, 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973), Armstrong v. State, 294 Ala. 100, 312 So.2d 620 (1975), and Wyatt v. State, 608 So.2d 762 (Ala. 1992), before probation can be revoked, an Alabama trial court must provide a written order stating the evidence and the reasons relied upon to revoke probation.' Trice v. State, 707 So.2d 294, 295 (Ala.Crim.App. 1997). `These requirements offer the probationer some protection from an abuse of discretion by the trial court, aid an appellate court in reviewing a revocation, and prevent future revocations based on the same conduct.' T.H.B. v. State, 649 So.2d 1323, 1324 (Ala.Crim.App. 1994)."Chenault v. State, 777 So.2d 314, 316-17 (Ala.Crim.App. 2000).