Court Opinion

ID: 9531907
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:15:55.937407+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:37.327408
License: Public Domain

LANE, Judge
concurring in result:
I agree with the majority’s analysis of the law in the second proposition pertaining to the need for a preliminary procedure in a revocation case. However, I disagree with the application as made by the majority in this matter. The majority states that the need for a determination of probable cause is satisfied by the fact that he was under arrest for another charge. It is true that our record indicates that another charge was filed against the appellant. However, there is nothing in the record now before us to indicate that a probable cause determination was made in that case. It is my position that to excuse a preliminary hearing by reason that probable cause was found in another manner, it must be clear that another procedure has in fact determined probable cause. The current record does not show that this was done.