Revocation May Be Improper When New Case Dismissed

See the Thompson v. State case - link: http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=59149
See the Hole v. State case - link:
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=59130

See: Thompson v. State, Okl.Cr., 487 P.2d 740 (1971) and Hole v.State, Okl.Cr., 486 P.2d 645 (1971). In both of these cases the only evidence presented at the revocation hearing was a judgment and sentence on a conviction during a period each defendant was on probation for a prior offense. Subsequently, each conviction, the subject of the judgment and sentence admitted at the revocation proceeding, was reversed on appeal. This Court held the revocation being solely predicated upon the conviction, the judgment and sentence in evidence and that conviction being reversed, the orderrevoking the suspended sentence should be vacated as that order is not supported by the evidence.

Above is from: Phipps v. State, 1974 OK CR 219, which upheld therevocation even though the underlying basis - a new criminal case was dismissed for lack of evidence --- had a revocation hearing where the court heard witnesses testify as to the underlying new criminal offense even though it was dismissed without a trial forlack of evidence.

See the link: to Phipps:

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?id=368&hits=