12 results for 'cat:"Probation" AND cat:"Due Process"'.
J. Hixson finds the circuit court properly revoked defendant's suspended imposition of sentence. Defendant was convicted for failure to support after not making $20,000 in child support payments. He pleaded no contest to charges of nonsupport and fleeing. All evidence supports the conviction. He also did not raise the issue the court failed to provide him with the written terms of his probation. Affirmed.
Court: Arkansas Court Of Appeals, Judge: Hixson , Filed On: April 10, 2024, Case #: CR-23-272, Categories: probation, due Process
J. Neeley finds the trial court properly revoked defendant's community supervision for his guilty plea conviction for assaulting a member of his household by impeding breathing or circulation. Defendant's supervision was properly revoked for his failure to submit to a urinalysis and for committing another assault against a different victim. If defendant's right to confront the alleged victim during the revocation hearing was violated, any error regarding a violation to which he pleaded “not true” did not contribute to his conviction because he pleaded “true” to other offenses. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Neeley , Filed On: March 28, 2024, Case #: 12-23-00199-CR, Categories: probation, Assault, due Process
J. Thyer finds the county court properly revoked defendant's suspended imposition of sentence. After defendant's guilty plea conviction for manufacturing meth, he served seven years of a 15-year sentence before being paroled. During his parole term, he was rearrested for possession of multiple types of drugs. The court allowed testimony from the agent who conducted the controlled drug purchase for the limited purpose of establishing the reasoning behind his plan. Because the court expressly determined the testimony was not offered for its truth, its ruling did not offend the confrontation clause. Affirmed.
Court: Arkansas Court Of Appeals, Judge: Thyer , Filed On: February 21, 2024, Case #: CR-23-214, Categories: Drug Offender, probation, due Process
J. Soto finds a lower court did not err in entering an order of deferred adjudication in an assault case. Defendant appealed, arguing she had not in fact waived her right to a jury trial, but while the record does not include a written waiver of her jury rights, there was nonetheless evidence that defendant “knowingly and intelligently” waived a jury trial, including in a recitation and in an email exchange between her defense attorney and a prosecutor. Affirmed.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Soto, Filed On: January 31, 2024, Case #: 08-22-00161-CR, Categories: Jury, probation, due Process
J. Papik finds the county court properly removed defendant from the problem-solving court program. Convicted by guilty plea for attempted possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, defendant was enrolled in the program and subsequently removed due to repeated failures to comply with requirements. By pleading guilty, defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to a presentence investigation and his sentence is within statutory guidelines. Affirmed.
Court: Nebraska Supreme Court, Judge: Papik , Filed On: January 19, 2024, Case #: S-23-192, Categories: Firearms, probation, due Process
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Ortega finds the trial court erred because the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution required application of the corpus delicti rule to his confession for having violated a condition of his probation. The appeal is unpreserved. Affirmed.
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals, Judge: Ortega, Filed On: October 11, 2023, Case #: A178001, Categories: probation, due Process
J. Mortensen finds that a judge who was previously a defense attorney and had represented defendant should have recused himself before presiding over his probation revocation hearing. Though the judge created an appearance of partiality by failing to disqualify himself, defendant did not show any prejudice and his probation was revoked for multiple violations, an avoidance of probation obligations and an extensive criminal history. Affirmed.
Court: Utah Court Of Appeals, Judge: Mortensen, Filed On: September 28, 2023, Case #: 20220280-CA, Categories: Judiciary, probation, due Process
[Consolidated.] J. Henderson finds defendants' due process rights were violated by delays of two years and eight months, respectively, before their initial duration review hearing could be held, during which time they were forced to abide by conditions of probation even though the state had not met its burden to prove continued probation was necessary. Therefore, the cases will be remanded for new hearings that take into account the due process violations and defendants' eligibility to have probation revoked at the time their initial hearings should have been conducted. Reversed.
Court: New Mexico Court of Appeals, Judge: Henderson, Filed On: September 18, 2023, Case #: A-1-CA-39291, Categories: probation, Sex Offender, due Process
J. Pirtle finds that the trial court properly convicted defendant by no contest plea for one count of terroristic threat, later revoking his probation and sentencing him to one year of confinement. While the court did not articulate its weighing of requisite factors, there is no statutory requirement for this. Defendant was already serving concurrent probations for separate offenses and had violated probationary terms several times. However, the court did err in failing to impose post-release supervision in addition to confinement, and this issue is remanded. Affirmed in part.
Court: Nebraska Court Of Appeals, Judge: Pirtle , Filed On: September 12, 2023, Case #: A-23-080, Categories: probation, due Process, Terrorism
J. Barrett finds the circuit court improperly revoked defendant’s suspended imposition of sentence on his guilty plea conviction for possession of less than two grams of meth. The revocation was based on alleged violations of possession with intent to deliver that occurred prior to the sentencing order’s entry. Although defendant’s suspended sentence commenced upon pronouncement in the courtroom, it may not be revoked unless the sentencing order is entered in the record. Reversed and remanded.
Court: Arkansas Court Of Appeals, Judge: Barrett, Filed On: August 30, 2023, Case #: CR-23-69, Categories: Drug Offender, probation, due Process
J. Abramson finds the trial court properly revoked defendant’s probation and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw. Defendant was convicted by guilty plea for false imprisonment and domestic battery. The state alleged that defendant had committed new offenses, tested positive for alcohol and drugs, failed to report, failed to notify of an address change, failed to pay fees, fines and costs and failed to complete a domestic battery course and community service. The record shows that the attorney has complied with rules of procedure according to Anders and that there is no nonfrivolous argument that could serve as the basis for appeal. Affirmed.
Court: Arkansas Court Of Appeals, Judge: Abramson, Filed On: May 17, 2023, Case #: CR-21-255, Categories: probation, Battery, due Process
J. Eveleigh finds defendant's failure to raise an objection to the lower court's refusal to balance his interest in cross-examining the preschool employee's statements to the director about the threats that ultimately resulted in the revocation of his probation bars him from raising the issue on appeal. Meanwhile, the lower court properly admitted the director's testimony about the employee's statements because they were corroborated by the director's own version of events, which included speaking to the employee immediately after the confrontation. Affirmed.
Court: Connecticut Court Of Appeals, Judge: Eveleigh, Filed On: May 12, 2023, Case #: AC38602, Categories: probation, Threats, due Process