Opinion ID: 2510443
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Record Must Reflect the Evidence Relied on and the Reasons for Extending Probation.

Text: ¶30 One of the minimum requirements of due process is that a defendant receive a written statement by the factfinder as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for revoking probation. Black v. Romano, 471 U.S. 606, 612 (1985); Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 786 (1973); United States v. Gilbert, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 33744, -8 (10th Cir. Dec. 4, 1995) (unpublished opinion). ¶31 Because the purpose of the written statement requirement is to provide a basis for review and encourage accurate factfinding, Black, 471 U.S. at 613-14; Gilbert, 1995 U.S. App. Lexis 33744, at -8, a transcribed oral finding or district court order is sufficient to meet that requirement so long as it enables the reviewing court to determine the basis of the district court's decision. See Gilbert, 1995 U.S. App. Lexis 33744, at -8; accord Morishita v. Morris, 702 F.2d 207, 210 (10th Cir. 1983) (We hold that written findings are constitutionally required only if the transcript and record before the judge do not enable a reviewing court to determine the basis of the judge's decision to revoke probation.); Morishita v. Morris, 621 P.2d 691, 693 n.2 (Utah 1980) (holding that findings were sufficient despite a lack of express written findings because the transcript revealed the judge's thought process and the conclusions he drew from the evidence). ¶32 We now turn to the issue of whether the district court was required to find that a probation violation was willful.