Burns v. United States, 287 U.S. 216 (1932)

Text

---

U.S. Supreme Court BURNS v. UNITED STATES, 287 U.S. 216 (1932)

[Page 287 U.S. 216, 219]

asked to be taken home to get a change of clothes; that usually each time he went to the house he went for a change of linen.

After petitioner had testified, the court, denying the request of petitioner's counsel for an opportunity to present further evidence, especially as to matters upon which the court did not base its conclusion, revoked the probation order. The court said that 'there is enough obviously before this court to show that the spirit of the probation was not in any sense complied with.' The Circuit Court of Appeals, reviewing petitioner's testimony at length, sustained the order as based not upon 'a technical escape, but upon the fact that the appellant had not acted in good faith in carrying out the order of the trial judge, but, on the contrary, had taken advantage of a general permit to carry out his own purposes quite independently of the basis and theory upon which the order was given.' (C.C.A.) 59 F.(2d) 724.

First. Petitioner objects to the summary character of the proceeding. He urges that he was entitled to previous notice of specific charges of violation of the terms of probation and to a hearing upon such charges according to the established rules of judicial procedure. As opposed to the action sanctioned below he invokes principles announced in Hollandsworth v. United States (C.C.A.4th) 34 F.(2d) 423, 428, and in certain decisions of state courts dealing with procedure under state probation laws. See State v. Zolantakis, 70 Utah, 296, 259 P. 1044, 54 A.L. R. 1463, 1471, note. [Footnote 1]

[Page 287 U.S. 216, 224]

the court rested its decision. The court revoked the probation upon defendant's admissions of his dereliction, and it does not appear that there was an abuse of discretion.

Judgment affirmed. Footnotes

Footnote 1 See, also, Riggs v. United States (C.C.A.4th 14 F.(2d) 5, 9, 10; Furrow v. United States (C.C.A.4th) 46 F.(2d) 647; Ex parte Lucero, 23 N. Mex. 433, 168 P. 713, L.R.A. 1918C, 549; State v. O'Neal, 147 Wash. 169, 265 P. 175; Plunkett v. Miller, 161 Ga. 466, 131 S.E. 170; Williams v. State, 162 Ga. 327, 133 S.E. 843; State v. Hardin, 183 N.C. 815, 112 S.E. 593; Weber v. State, 58 Ohio St. 616, 51 N.E. 116, 41 L.R.A. 472. Compare Campbell v. Aderhold (D.C.N.D.Ga.) 36 F.(2d) 366, 367; United States v. Mulligan (C.C.A.2d) 48 F.(2d) 93, 94; Jianole v. United States (C.C.A.8th) 58 F.(2d) 115, 117; People ex rel. Forsyth v. Court of Sessions, 141 N.Y. 288, 36 N.E. 386, 23 L.R.A. 856; People ex rel, Pasco v. Trombly, 173 App. Div. 497. 160 N.Y.S. 67; People ex rel. Woodin v. Ottaway, 247 N.Y. 493, 497, 161 N.E. 157; Commonwealth v. McGovern, 183 Mass. 238, 66 N.E. 805; Finer v. Commonwealth, 250 Mass. 493, 146 N.E. 23; People v. Dudley, 173 Mich. 389, 392, 395, 138 N.W. 1044; Richardson v. Commonwealth, 131 Va. 802, 810, 811, 109 S.E. 460; State v. Sullivan, 127 S.C. 186, 121 S.E. 47; State v. Miller, 122 S.C. 468, 473-475, 115 S.E. 742; People v. Sapienzo, 60 Cal.App. 626, 213 P. 274; People v. Sanders, 64 Cal.App. 1, 220 P. 24.

---