Corion Lashawn Moore v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 06/25/2010 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 CR-09-0398 C o r i o n Lashawn Moore v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal KELLUM, from Etowah C i r c u i t (CC-07-1373) Court Judge. The circuit indicates appellant, court's that to unlawful Corion revocation Lashawn Moore, appeals The record o n o r a b o u t M a y 2, 2 0 0 8 , M o o r e p l e a d e d guilty possession of h i s probation. from t h e of marijuana i n t h e s e c o n d d e g r e e . The CR-09-0398 circuit court sentenced M o o r e t o 365 h o w e v e r , t h a t s e n t e n c e was two years' On revoke supervised June 23, Moore's unlawful possession of concealed the probation of marijuana weapon. On suspended, and county M o o r e was jail; placed on motion seeking to criminal charges of probation. 2009, possession days i n the State based a filed on a new controlled i n the December first 15, substance, degree, 2009, and the unlawful carrying circuit a court c o n d u c t e d a b r i e f h e a r i n g a t w h i c h Moore, defense c o u n s e l , and the S t a t e were p r e s e n t . A t the c o n c l u s i o n of t h a t h e a r i n g , the circuit This court appeal On entered Moore erroneously revoked revocation hearing, adequately specific Rule order revoking Moore's (1) the probation. followed. appeal, revoking an his set contends his probation and (2) probation is forth reasons for 2 7 . 6 ( f ) , A l a . R. the that without the deficient specific revoking Crim. that his circuit first circuit conducting court's because evidence i t relied probation court as order did on or required P. "'The g e n e r a l r u l e s of p r e s e r v a t i o n a p p l y to p r o b a t i o n r e v o c a t i o n h e a r i n g s . P u c k e t t v . S t a t e , 680 So. 2d 980, 983 (Ala. Crim. App. 1 996), citing T a y l o r v . S t a t e , 600 So. 2d 1 0 8 0 , 1081 (Ala. Crim. 2 a not the by CR-09-0398 App. 1 9 9 2 ) . T h i s C o u r t "has r e c o g n i z e d , i n p r o b a t i o n revocation proceedings, o n l y two e x c e p t i o n s t o t h e g e n e r a l r u l e t h a t i s s u e s not p r e s e n t e d to the t r i a l c o u r t a r e w a i v e d on a p p e a l : (1) t h e r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t t h e r e be an a d e q u a t e w r i t t e n o r d e r o f r e v o c a t i o n . . . , and (2) t h e r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t a r e v o c a t i o n hearing a c t u a l l y be h e l d . " P u c k e t t , 680 So. 2 d a t 9 8 3 . ' " Bauer v. State, 2004)(quoting App. a 1998)). 891 Owens v . This defendant can requirement that r i g h t to request 250 2d 673, also recognized the first advise the court time proceedings. See Law adequacy of for first order argues that the i s s u e s f a l l w i t h i n one Court for hearing of h i s or her S t a t e , 778 the the 2d probation- circuit time on court's appeal. three exceptions they are, review. hearing, conducted 3 to therefore, t h a t the c i r c u i t court f a i l e d probation-revocation the of of the requirement; Regarding his contention a the 2000). general-preservation conduct - So. the this appeal v. sufficiency before exception during hearing However, the (Ala. Crim. a third on App. the defendant the and Crim. 680 defendant an a t t o r n e y t o r e p r e s e n t probation-revocation properly So. (Ala. challenges revocation the 728 1 00 6 has ( A l a . C r i m . App. Moore 10 04 , for raise the 2d State, court probation-revocation 249, So. on Moore December to specifically 15, 2009, at CR-09-0398 which no testimony sufficient or to constitute r e q u i r e d by § 15-22-24, court Ala. failed App. presented, A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , a n d t h a t the requirements was not hearing as the c i r c u i t o f R u l e 27.6, P. Hollins 1998), was a probation-revocation t o comply w i t h R. C r i m . In evidence v. S t a t e , this court 737 S o . 2 d 1 0 5 6 , 1 0 5 7 ( A l a . Crim. held: " S e c t i o n 15-22-54, A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 , r e q u i r e s a hearing as a p r e r e q u i s i t e t o t h e r e v o c a t i o n o f p r o b a t i o n . This s t a t u t o r y requirement i s mandatory a n d j u r i s d i c t i o n a l . S t o r y v . S t a t e , 572 S o . 2 d 510 ( A l a . C r . App. 1990). A d d i t i o n a l l y , t h e a p p e l l a n t was d e n i e d h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t t o d u e p r o c e s s by the revocation of h i s probation without a h e a r i n g . The m i n i m a l due p r o c e s s t o be a c c o r d e d a probationer before h i s probation c a n be revoked includes written notice of the claimed violations of probation, disclosure to the probationer of the e v i d e n c e a g a i n s t h i m , an o p p o r t u n i t y t o be h e a r d i n person and t o present witnesses and documentary evidence, the r i g h t t o confront and t o cross-examine adverse witnesses, a n e u t r a l and detached hearing body such as a t r a d i t i o n a l p a r o l e b o a r d , and a written statement by the f a c t f i n d e r as t o t h e e v i d e n c e r e l i e d on a n d t h e r e a s o n s f o r r e v o k i n g p r o b a t i o n . R u l e 2 7 . 5 a n d 2 7 . 6 , A l a . R. C r i m . P. S e e A r m s t r o n g v . S t a t e , 294 A l a . 1 0 0 , 312 S o . 2 d 620 ( 1 9 7 5 ) ; H e r n a n d e z v . S t a t e , 673 S o . 2 d 477 ( A l a . C r . A p p . 19 9 5 ) . " In this support Court's of h i s contention holding Crim. App. 2006). on a p p e a l , i n D.L.B. v . S t a t e , relies 941 S o . 2 d 324 I n D.L.B., t h e d e f e n d a n t , 4 Moore on (Ala. D.L.B., w h i l e on CR-09-0398 probation, was a r r e s t e d o n new c h a r g e s o f t h e p o s s e s s i o n distribution of u n l a w f u l drugs. probation-revocation however, on b o t h third scheduled brief hearing The c i r c u i t hearing occasions hearing at which on two date, testimony was at the At the conclusion of the hearing, revoked D.L.B.'s D.L.B., the without that circuit first on the the c i r c u i t "that State's i t was court revoking representation." the revocation of h i s probation, court conducting the hearing comply noting taken 941 S o . 2 d a t 3 2 5 . D.L.B. a p p e a l e d that based a defense hearing. probation conducted from both and the prosecutor. D.L.B.'s court On t h e arguments counsel probation, No a occasions; was c o n t i n u e d . the c i r c u i t i t heard court scheduled separate the hearing and erroneously revoked a probation-revocation conducted by the court the requirements So. 2d a t 326. T h i s C o u r t the circuit court, his of § 15-22-54, was probation hearing and insufficient to A l a . Code agreed and reversed arguing 1975. t h e judgment o f holding: " A l t h o u g h t h e J u l y 13, 2005, h e a r i n g p u r p o r t e d to be a p r o b a t i o n - r e v o c a t i o n h e a r i n g , the court a n n o u n c e d t h a t i t was r e v o k i n g D . L . B . ' s p r o b a t i o n w i t h o u t h e a r i n g t e s t i m o n y from any S t a t e ' s w i t n e s s e s a n d w i t h o u t a l l o w i n g D.L.B. a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o b e heard. Because t h e c i r c u i t court revoked D.L.B.'s 5 941 CR-09-0398 probation based on t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of the p r o s e c u t o r , r a t h e r t h a n on e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d t o t h e court i n t h e form o f witness testimony or other l e g a l evidence, D.L.B. was d e n i e d t h e r i g h t t o a hearing where he could be heard and present witnesses a n d d o c u m e n t a r y e v i d e n c e a n d w h e r e he could confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses." D.L.B., 941 S o . 2 d a t 3 2 6 . In the instant case, revoked Moore's p r o b a t i o n State's witnesses as i n D.L.B., without and without hearing the c i r c u i t testimony court from any a l l o w i n g Moore an o p p o r t u n i t y t o be h e a r d . The r e c o r d e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t t h e c i r c u i t court on well as t h e a t an earlier the representations court's own r e c o l l e c t i o n hearing involving of the prosecutor, of evidence presented Moore's codefendant, Moore's p r o b a t i o n . The c i r c u i t in t h e form before that hearing. circuit was denied h i s right or other t o conduct with R. C r i m . § to a reverse o f Moore's p r o b a t i o n court accordance we evidence we m u s t conclude probation-revocation the circuit and remand t h i s A l a . Code P. 6 evidence legal a probation-revocation 15-22-54, t o revoke court d i d not consider testimony Accordingly, revocation Ala. of witness i n deciding r e v o k i n g Moore's p r o b a t i o n . T h e r e f o r e , Moore as relied case court's f o r the hearing in 1975, and R u l e 27.6, CR-09-0398 Because of Moore's we are reversing the c i r c u i t probation on t h e b a s i s that court's the court revocation failed conduct a p r o b a t i o n - r e v o c a t i o n hearing i n compliance w i t h to Rule 2 7 . 6 , we n e e d n o t a d d r e s s M o o r e ' s s e c o n d c o n t e n t i o n p e r t a i n i n g to t h e adequacy probation. 27.6(f), probation, state for of the c i r c u i t However, we remind A l a . R. Crim. P., "[t]he judge shall f o r the record revoking order revoking the c i r c u i t provides make a the evidence r e l i e d court that, when written Moore's that Rule revoking statement REMANDED. P . J . , and Welch, Windom, a n d M a i n , 7 or upon and t h e r e a s o n s probation." R E V E R S E D AND Wise, court's J J . , concur.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.