English v. StateEnglish v. State
This аppeal is from the revocation of probation. The аppellant on March 26, 1973, entered a plea of guilty to grand larceny, was sentenced to a term of four years, and plaсed on probation for this period.
On October 1, 1973, the appеllant was arrested by officers of the Mobile Police Department and charged with the possession of a pistol after a crime of violence. The district attorney then filed a motion in the instant appeal to revoke appellant’s probatiоn. Thereafter, this cause was heard in open court on March 15, 1974, with the appellant being represented by counsel, and continued for further hearing until May 16, 1974, when the hearing was completed and the cause taken under ad *657 visement by the trial court. Finally, the appellant appeared with his attorney before the trial court on June 28, 1974, and on this occasion the probation was revoked. Appellant was directed to commence serving his four-year sentence as previously imposed.
I
The appellant argues that the revocation of probation in the instant case constitutes an abuse of discretion.
The original graiit of probаtion by the trial court was a matter of grace entirely within its discretion. Sparks v. State,
The revocation in the instant case came after two hearings before the trial court, wherein evidence was adduced. The evidence in question, by the officers who arrеsted the appellant on October 1, 1973, on the Dauphin Island Parkway, indicated that on this occasion the vehicle belonged to the appellant, the appellant was the driver, and that hе had no driver’s license. Upon looking into the vehicle, the officers testified that they observed a pistol partially exposed under a scarf lying on the front seat in plain view. Upon removing the scarf, a twenty-two caliber pistol was revealed, and next to it wаs a blank pistol, called, “a son-of-a-gun.” [R. p. 25]
The officers were thoroughly cross-examined by counsel, and appellant had оriginally requested that the trial court take the matter under advisemеnt until the case involving the pistol was disposed of. This, the trial court did dо originally, but subsequently following a hearing, revoked the appellant’s probation. It is clear that such was in full compliance with the рrovisions of Title 42, Section 24, Code of Alabama 1940, and Fiorella v. State,
Moreover, it is permissible to have a hearing on a revocation of probation before conviction is had upоn an independent offense. Dixon v. State,
We have carefully еxamined this record, and are of the opinion that the recоrd fully sustains the action of the trial court in revoking probation. The initial burden of persuasion was met, and the appellant failed to counter same. Martin v. State,
The trial judge was, under Title 42, Section 24, Code of Alabama 1940, confronted, not only with the issue of revocаtion vel non, but also whether to continue, extend, or terminate the period of probation. Buckelew v. State,
We find no error in the action of the trial court, and the judgment appealed frоm is due to be affirmed. Williams v. State,
Affirmed.