In a case emphasizing the importance of meeting the evidentiary burden in all criminal proceedings, the Alabama Court of Criminal appeals recently heard the appeal of Daurel Eugene Kelly v. State of Alabama, arising from Baldwin County. Kelly’s appeal underscores the high standard of proof required in probation revocation hearings, following the same principles as other criminal proceedings.
Daurel Eugene Kelly was convicted of felony driving under the influence and began serving probation in April 2022. During Kelly’s probation, two reports were made alleging further arrests, with the first report detailing a November 2022 arrest for public intoxication and the second describing a June 2023 arrest for attempting to elude law enforcement and leaving the scene of an accident with injuries. As a result of these reports, the circuit court held a revocation hearing in October 2023. Despite lack of evidence for the public intoxication claim, the circuit court found sufficient evidence to substantiate the claims regarding Kelly’s June 2023 arrest, and subsequently revoked Kelly’s probation. Instead, the Court ordered Kelly to serve the remainder of his eight-year sentence in the Alabama Department of Corrections.
On appeal, Kelly argued that his new arrest was not, alone, sufficient grounds to revoke his probation. Kelly supported his argument by citing past cases, asserting that probation revocation requires evidence proving he committed the offense, not just an arrest. Kelly’s revocation was in violation of this standard, relying solely on his arrests during the probationary period, without satisfying the burden of proving that Kelly had actually committed the offenses. Accordingly, the Court reversed the probation revocation order against Kelly.
In addition to the broader ruling on Kelly’s probation, the Court also clarified the application of Rule 27.6(f) of the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure. Under this rule, the Court must produce a written statement of evidence, citing reasons for revocation. However, the Court clarified that oral statements can meet this standard, provided they create a comprehensive record.
Daurel Eugene Kelly v. State of Alabama stands as an important clarification of the burden of proof required to revoke a person’s probation. Although the terms of Kelly’s probation stipulated that Kelly could not commit new offenses, an arrest alone is insufficient to prove a new offense. According to established principles of criminal law, a person can only be penalized for committing an offense when their involvement is supported and substantiated by evidence.
If you have a Federal Criminal case, a State Criminal case, a Municipal Case or a Family Law case, contact Joe Ingram or Ingram Law LLC at 205-335-2640 or 205-506-5590.
Get Relief Get Results.