Longmire v. State

Citations: 575 So. 2d 1229; 1990 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 2083; 1990 WL 255905Docket: CR 89-1152

Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama; December 27, 1990; Alabama; State Appellate Court

Lead Opinion SummaryLead Opinion Original

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The appeal concerns the revocation of Thomas E. Longmire's probation following his 1986 conviction for receiving stolen property, which included a split sentence of three years in prison and 12 years of probation. Longmire's probation was revoked in May 1990 after his arrest for possession of marijuana and illegal firearm possession. He raises three issues in this appeal. The circuit court's written order revoking probation is detailed and supported by the record, fulfilling the 'reasonable satisfaction' standard required for such proceedings. In probation revocation cases, the burden of proof is lower than beyond a reasonable doubt. Contrary to Longmire's claims, the circuit judge provided a written order outlining the evidence and reasons for the revocation, complying with legal standards.

During the revocation hearing, the State presented a report from the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences identifying the seized plant material as marijuana. This report was admissible despite the lack of a proven chain of custody, as strict evidentiary rules do not apply in revocation hearings, especially given that the marijuana's identity was unchallenged and corroborated by a law enforcement officer's testimony based on experience. However, the court referenced previous cases, noting that hearsay cannot solely support a probation revocation. In Longmire's case, while two laboratory reports indicated traces of marijuana in his urine, the individuals who conducted the tests did not testify, thus relying on hearsay for the violation claim. This reliance on hearsay deprived Longmire of his right to confront the evidence against him, constituting a denial of minimal due process and leading to insufficient evidence for the revocation. The case is distinguished from others where the admissibility of evidence was not the primary issue since the revocation here was supported by testimonies from arresting officers regarding the circumstances of the alleged violations.

The laboratory reports regarding the urinalysis were deemed reliable and properly admitted into evidence during the probation revocation hearing. The reports are standard from a company specializing in such tests, and there was no evidence presented to dispute the probationer’s drug use; the probationer only made vague claims about potential defects in the tests. The court found sufficient justification to allow the government to avoid the expense of bringing chemists from California for testimony, as such testimony rarely benefits the challenging party. The circuit court's decision to revoke the appellant's probation was affirmed with all judges concurring.

In the Circuit Court of Escambia County, Alabama, the defendant, Thomas E. Longmire, faced probation violation charges for possession of marijuana and a firearm. During the revocation hearing on May 23, 1990, Officer Roland Howell testified to having received information from a confidential informant about the defendant having drugs. After locating the defendant’s vehicle, Howell approached him for identification, which the defendant could not provide. Howell’s concerns for safety led him to conduct a pat-down search during which he felt a bulge in the defendant's pants. The defendant fled when confronted, leading to a chase. A search along the route revealed a paper bag containing two plastic bags with green plant material, which Howell identified as marijuana based on his experience.

The court found sufficient evidence to support the defendant's possession of marijuana. Testimony from Officer Howell indicated that a paper bag containing marijuana, identified as weighing .19 ounces, was discovered along the path taken by the defendant during a police chase. Despite rainy conditions that left the area wet, the bag was dry, suggesting recent placement. Officer Howell also noted feeling a bulge in the defendant's pants before he fled the scene, which the court interpreted as indicative of guilt. Additionally, the defendant was found with $2,096 in cash, including a significant amount in twenty-dollar bills, further raising suspicions. The combination of these factors led the court to conclude that the defendant had something to hide, and the court deemed the evidence compelling enough to revoke his probation and require him to serve the remainder of his original sentence. The defendant is also ordered to pay any costs or restitution upon release or when financially able. The ruling was issued by Circuit Judge Bradley E. Byrne on May 25, 1990.