Opinion ID: 2539186
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: History of Present CasesCourt of Appeals.

Text: Both Marshall and Johnson appealed to the Court of Appeals. And the two panels hearing these appeals resolved the cases differently, although both vacated the trial court's revocation orders and remanded each case to the trial court for further proceedings. The Court of Appeals panel considering Marshall's appeal remanded for written findings of fact identifying the evidence relied on and the reasons for revocation, citing the United States Supreme Court case of Morrissey v. Brewer . [5] But that same panel rejected Marshall's argument that precedent required consideration of his reasons for not making the payments and consideration of alternative forms of punishment. Specifically, the Marshall panel concluded that although these considerations were required to revoke probation for failure to pay fines and restitution, they did not apply to failure to pay child support. Similarly, the panel in Johnson's appeal also remanded for findings of fact identifying the evidence relied on to support revocation. But this panel did not discuss the need for such findings to be made in writing. The majority of the Johnson panel discussed how probation revocation for failure to pay fines and restitution required inquiry into the reasons for nonpayment and consideration of alternative forms of punishment. The majority directed the trial court on remand to afford Johnson an opportunity to present evidence arising post-plea of his inability to make payments. [6] But the majority noted that Johnson should not have entered a guilty plea to flagrant nonsupport if he knew he could not comply with the condition that he make the required child support payments. The Johnson majority stated, the only consideration for the trial court is whether, post-plea, financial conditions beyond Johnson's control lessened or wholly negated his ability to comply with the probation condition requiring the payment of money. The dissenting judge in Johnson argued that the trial court did not abuse its discretion and that [t]here is no legal authority requiring the trial court to inquire into the reason for nonpayment or to consider alternative methods of punishment when revoking Johnson's conditional discharge for nonpayment of child support. The dissent concluded that cases dealing with probation violations for nonpayment of fines and restitution, such as Bearden v. Georgia [7] and Clayborn v. Commonwealth [8] were not applicable.