Meadows v. Settles

A reviewing court is authorized to reverse a probation revocation for fundamental unfairness based on independent evidence showing that the admission of a probation violation was not knowing or voluntary.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

This case arises out of the grant of habeas corpus relief to Phillip Settles. Settles was serving a 10 year probated sentence for a conviction of cruelty to a child when a petition to revoke his probation was filed. The record reflects that at the revocation hearing, Settles stipulated to violating the terms of his probation after acknowledging that he was doing so without being threatened by anyone or promised anything. The record is clear, however, that this stipulation was made based upon the mistaken belief, shared by Settles, his probation officer and the trial judge, that the balance remaining on the sentence Settles had to serve was only two years and a few months. The actual balance remaining was over six years. Based on this misunderstanding, the probation officer recommended and the court agreed to revoke the balance of Settles’ sentence. Settles thereafter sought habeas relief which was granted on the sole basis that because Settles did not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily stipulate to the revocation of six years or the balance of his probation, it would be manifestly unfair and unjust to deny Settles’ writ. Warden Tydus Meadows appeals from the grant of the writ.

1. We find no merit in the State’s contention that the court improperly granted relief on a basis that was not raised and to which the State had no opportunity to respond. A review of the habeas transcript reveals that the issue whether Settles knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily stipulated to the revocation of six years of his probation was the primary issue raised and discussed by the court, Settles and counsel for the State. The record further reveals that ample opportunity was presented to the State to respond to that issue both at the hearing and prior to entry of the habeas court’s ruling.

Meadows v. Settles

A reviewing court is authorized to reverse a probation revocation for fundamental unfairness based on independent evidence showing that the admission of a probation violation was not knowing or voluntary.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report