 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hill v. Com.10/8/2004
r revoking [probation].
Supra at 840. Murphy makes no mention of requiring a written order informing a defendant of the terms of his probation. Also, the record reflects that Hill did receive a written notice of the alleged violation (new offenses committed while on probation) and the evidence against him (parole officer's affidavit relating to criminal domestic violence allegations), an opportunity to be heard and present evidence, an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses against him, and a neutral fact finder presiding over the hearing.
Next, Hill's claim that the evidence at the probation revocation hearing was insufficient to prove that he violated the terms of his probation relies on a misunderstanding of the meaning of committing new offenses. Evidence was introduced that Hill's wife had a DVO against him and that he struck her, knocked her down, threatened additional violence toward her and caused her injuries for which she sought medical treatment. It was unnecessary for the Commonwealth to introduce evidence that Hill had been charged with or convicted of another crime, only that he had committed criminal acts. Hill's third contention is that the trial court should not have revoked his probation because he testified that he did not commit an acts of violence toward his wife and her testimony and that of his mother-in-law was not believable. Nevertheless, Hill fails to show any abuse on discretion in the trial court's decision to believe his wife and mother-in-law rather than his own self-serving testimony.
Finally, Hill argues that the trial court's order fails to state in writing the evidence relied on to support its decision revoking his probation. Indeed, the trial court's order simply states in relevant part as follows:
The Court having conducted an evidentiary hearing in which Defendant had the opportunity to call or examine witnesses and present proof; and the Court being otherwise sufficiently advised does now hereby FIND and ADJUDGE that the Defendant violated a term of his probation by committing another offense ...
While the trial court's order makes clear its reason for revoking Hill's probation (commission of a new offense), it does not contain any written statement of the evidence relied on by the trial court in reaching this conclusion. Our prior decision in Murphy unequivocally states that the fact finder must make a written statement of the evidence relied on in addition to the reason for revoking probation. Thus, we are bound to vacate the trial court's order revoking Hill's probation and remand this case for a new order from the trial court which states in writing the evidence supporting its conclusion that Hill violated his probation by committing a new offense.
*3 The order of the Henderson Circuit Court is vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Page 1 2 Kentucky DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|