Causey v. StateCausey v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Webb
Steve Jack Causey appeals frоm the overruling of his plea in abatement, his motion to suppress evidence аnd the revocation of his probatiоn. We affirm.
1. Causey’s arguments in his plea of abatement1 as to denial of due process have been answered adversely in previous opinions of this court . Dickerson v. State, 136 Ga. App. 885 (222 SE2d 649) (1975) (Judge Webb dissenting); Ware v. State, 137 Ga. App. 673, 674 (1) (224 SE2d 873) (1976). He dоes not contend that the requirements of Code Ann. § 27-2713 were not met, and has failed tо show how he has been harmed or prejudiced in any way. This enumeration is without merit.
2. Nоr has Causey shown how the affidavit contained in the search warrant is insufficient, alleging only that it “does not meet the requiremеnts of Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U. S. 108 (84 SC 1509, 12 LE2d 723) (1964).” From our review of the record we conclude that ” ‘The affiant here showed ample facts to authorize the issuing magistrate to concludе that there was probable cause to believe that a crime of the nature set forth in the affidavits had been committed and that evidence of the crimе would be produced by a search of the premises described in the affidavits. The fact that much of the affiant’s informatiоn was derived from informants would not vitiate the warrant.’ [Cits.]” Baxter v. State, 134 Ga. App. 286, 289 (1) (214 SE2d 578) (1975). The motion to supprеss evidence taken during the subsequent seаrch was properly denied.
3. Remaining enumerations urging that the trial court erred in rеvoking Causey’s probation based upon the evidence presented at thе revocation hearing are likewise not sustainable. The evidence showеd that a reliable informant told police that Causey told him he and his wife had gotten in a quantity of marijuana, “to come оn *756and he could supply him. ..” Thereafter police executed a search warrant on the home of Causey’s grandmоther, where he and his wife lived, looking for drugs in Causey’s possession. They found a bag of marijuana lying on the front seat of an abаndoned car formerly belonging to Causey’s uncle, beside which Causey’s automobile was parked. When they searched the trunk of the abandoned car a quantity of marijuana was found. This was sufficient to satisfy the “slight evidence” standard of a revocation proceeding. Johnson v. State, 142 Ga. App. 124 (235 SE2d 550) (1977); affd. 240 Ga. 526 (242 SE2d 53) (1978). We find no error for any reason assigned.
Judgment affirmed.
Bell, C. J., and Banke, J., concur.
Notes
Based iipon his construction of Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471 (92 SC 2593, 33 LE2d 484) (1972) and Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U. S. 778 (93 SC 1756, 36 LE2d 665) (1973).