Peoples v. State6/29/2001
The appellant, Gregory Lacelle Peoples, appeals from the circuit court's revocation of his probation. The record reveals that on September 23, 1997, Peoples pleaded guilty to one count of fraudulent possession of a credit card, a violation of § 13A-9-14, Ala. Code, 1975. Peoples was sentenced to three years' imprisonment; that sentence was split and he was sentenced to time served, with the balance suspended, and he was placed on supervised probation for three years.
On July 13, 1999, Peoples's probation officer filed a delinquency report, alleging that Peoples had been arrested on June 24, 1999, for committing a new offense -- second-degree robbery. The circuit court conducted a probation revocation hearing on August 27, 1999. Following the hearing, the circuit court allowed Peoples's case to be transferred to "drug court."
Peoples appeared in drug court on October 26, 1999, for a hearing on the probation-revocation charges and on the new charge. During this hearing, the second-degree robbery charge was amended to charge first- degree theft, and Peoples pleaded guilty to the amended charge. Peoples also admitted that he had violated the terms of his probation by committing the new offense. Thereupon, Peoples was admitted to the drug-court program. The court explained to Peoples that, in the event he failed to satisfactorily complete the drug program, his probation would be revoked; if that happened, the court explained, he would have to serve the three-year sentence from his 1997 conviction and the new sentence imposed for the first-degree theft conviction.
On August 29, 2000, Peoples's probation officer filed a delinquency report; in that report the officer alleged that Peoples had failed to comply with the terms of his probation in that he had not completed the drug-court program. Thereafter, Peoples was served with notice of a hearing. Following a hearing on September 26, 2000, the circuit court revoked Peoples's probation. This appeal followed.
Peoples contends that the circuit court's revocation of his probation should be reversed because, he says, (1) he was not given a probation-revocation hearing, and (2) the court's order revoking his probation was deficient because it did not contain a statement of the evidence relied on and the reasons for revoking his probation.
Section 15-22-54, Ala. Code 1975, requires a hearing as a prerequisite to the revocation of probation. See also Hollins v. State, 737 So. 2d 1056 (Ala.Crim.App. 1998). However, " ecause probation itself is an act of grace, a probation revocation hearing does not require all of the formalities of a criminal trial." Lindsey v. State, 768 So. 2d 408, 412 (Ala.Crim.App. 1998) (citing Williams v. State, 673 So. 2d 829, 830 (Ala.Crim.App. 1995)). Indeed, " ormal procedures and rules of evidence are not employed in probation revocation hearings." Williams v. State, 673 So. 2d at 830.
After examining the record before us, we are satisfied that the September 26, 2000, hearing was, in fact, a probation- revocation hearing. Moreover, it appears that Peoples, rather than arguing that the circuit court failed to hold a revocation hearing, is instead challenging the adequacy of the hearing that was held -- a claim that is being raised for the first time on appeal.
"The general rules of preservation apply to probation revocation hearings. Puckett v. State, 680 So. 2d 980, 983 (Ala.Cr.App. 1996), citing Taylor v. State, 600 So. 2d 1080, 1081 (Ala.Cr.App. 1992). This Court `has recognized, in probation revocation proceedings, only two exceptions to the general rule that issues not presented to the trial court are waived on appeal: (1) the requirement that there be an a
Page 1 2 3 Alabama DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|