Hawkins v. State

WILNER, Judge. In March, 1989, appellant was convicted in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County of theft. He was sentenced to imprisonment for one year, but execution of that sentence was suspended in favor of three years probation. Among the conditions of the probation were that appellant pay a $100 fine and $167 court costs through the Division of Parole and Probation, that he continue to work toward his GED, and that he report to his probation agent as directed.

In May, 1989, the Division filed a special report and request for warrant, alleging a failure by appellant to comply with any of those conditions. At a hearing held in July, the State presented evidence as to each of the alleged violations. The probation agent, Susan Bauer, testified that appellant failed to report as directed on seven occasions in April and May, that he failed to submit proof of his enrollment in a GED program, and that he was three months in arrears on his $10 per month payments toward the fine and court costs. As to the last of these violations, the agent acknowledged her awareness that appellant was not working—that he supposedly was staying at home to care for his ailing father.

Ms. Bauer testified further, however, that she had made a number of visits to the home and had called several times, but never found appellant there. Appellant claimed that he was in fact working toward his GED by “[r]eading a GED book.” He gave no particulars as to this book and did not produce it in court. He claimed that he had no income from which to make the required ⁷¹⁰ payments, and that he missed his appointments because his uncle died. When questioned, he could not recall exactly when his uncle had died—“[s]omewhere in between April, or May, something like that.” At the conclusion of the evidence, the court denied a defense “Motion for Judgment of Acquittal” based on “[n]o proof that he wasn’t working toward his GED and no proof of ability to pay.” In denying the motion, it stated its belief “that there is sufficient evidence from which I can find that the State has met its necessary burden of proof in this case on the violation of probation.” There being no further argument requested, the court found appellant in violation and directed execution of the one year sentence.

From that judgment, appellant has brought this appeal, complaining that (1) the evidence was insufficient to revoke his probation and (2) the court erred in failing to specify its