Denied September 13, 2019.
from Madison Circuit Court (CC-16-3994.71).
W. Smith, Huntsville, for appellant.
Marshall, atty. gen., and P. David Bjurberg, asst. atty.
gen., for appellee.
appellant, Robert Lee Jacobs, appeals from the circuit
court's revocation of his probation.
record indicates that in February 2017 Jacobs was convicted
of robbery in the third degree, see § 13A-8-43, Ala.
Code 1975. The circuit court sentenced Jacobs to 173
months' imprisonment; that sentence was split, and Jacobs
was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment followed by 3
years' supervised probation.
August 21, 2018, Jacobs's probation officer filed a
delinquency report alleging that Jacobs had violated the
terms and conditions of his probation following his arrest on
a new criminal charge of theft of property in the first
degree. Jacobs's probation officer also alleged Jacobs
violated the terms and conditions of his probation by failing
to complete the Alabama Certain Enforcement Supervision
Program (hereinafter the "ACES program") as ordered
by the circuit court. Based on Jacobs's violations, the
probation officer recommended that the circuit court fully
revoke Jacobs's probation.
October 10, 2018, the circuit court conducted a
probation-revocation hearing at which Jacobs was represented
by counsel. At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit
court found that the State did not present sufficient
evidence that Jacobs had committed a new criminal offense.
The court, however, entered an order on October 10, 2018,
revoking Jacobs's probation based on his failure to
successfully complete the ACES program. The circuit court
ordered Jacobs serve the balance of his 173-month sentence in
the custody of the Alabama Department of Corrections.
filed a timely motion to reconsider in which he argued, among
other things, that the circuit court erred by revoking his
probation "for a period of longer than 45 days under
[§ 15-22-54(e)(1), Ala. Code 1975]." (C. 23.) The
circuit court denied the motion to reconsider; this appeal
sole contention on appeal is that the circuit court erred
when it fully
revoked his probation after the court found that the State
had failed to prove that Jacobs violated his probation by
committing a new criminal offense. Specifically, Jacobs
contends that the circuit court could not fully revoke his
probation based on "a mere arrest or filing of
charges" but "could only give [him] a 45-day
`dunk' based on the technical violation."
(Jacobs's brief, p. 14.) The State argues on appeal that
"an allegation of a new arrest or conviction or an