Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

Williams v. State

571 So. 2d 410 (Ala. Crim. App. 1990)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
Williams v. State

3 Citing cases

  1. Hill v. State

    624 So. 2d 1102 (Ala. Crim. App. 1993)   Cited 2 times
    Holding that every probationary sentence includes the implicit condition that a probationer serving a split sentence will comply with prison rules and regulations while on probation

    The principle that there are implicit conditions in every probationary sentence applies here. See Patterson v. State, 572 So.2d 508 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990); Williams v. State, 571 So.2d 410 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990); Turner v. State, 516 So.2d 934 (Ala.Cr.App. 1987). This Court has addressed the only issue raised on appeal. The judgment of the circuit court revoking the appellant's "split sentence" and probation is affirmed.

  2. Woodberry v. State

    625 So. 2d 1159 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993)

    This case is therefore remanded to the trial court for preparation of a revocation order in full compliance with Armstrong v. State, 294 Ala. 100, 312 So.2d 620 (Ala. 1975). See also Patterson v. State, 572 So.2d 508 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990); Williams v. State, 571 So.2d 410 (Ala.Cr.App. 1990). Return shall be within 45 days of the release of this opinion.

  3. Williams v. State

    579 So. 2d 71 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991)   Cited 1 times

    On November 16, 1990, this court unanimously, with opinion, remanded this cause for the trial court to enter its order and judgment specifically stating the evidence relied upon and its reasons for revoking this appellant's probation, citing the applicable legal authorities. As directed in Williams [ 571 So.2d 410], the trial court has entered its order and judgment and has filed its return to remand. That order has been filed in this court and reads as follows: