McGavock

*335 Opinion

We hold here as a matter of first impression that the evidentiary rule stated in Penal Code 1 section 1111, requiring corroboration of accomplice testimony, does not apply in probation revocation proceedings.

I. Facts and Procedural History

Appellant Michael McGavock was placed on probation following his conviction for willfully inflicting corporal injury. (§ 273.5.) Shortly thereafter, appellant and an accomplice set out to steal refrigerated meat from an Oakland company, Pacific Coast Container. The two men cut holes through two fences, opened up trailers, and unloaded cases of meat, at which point the police arrived to prevent completion of the thefts. Appellant’s accomplice was caught at the scene by police, but appellant escaped.

In this appeal, appellant contends that the order of revocation and the subsequent sentence to state prison must be reversed because the trial court’s finding of a probation violation was based wholly on uncorroborated accomplice testimony in contravention of section 1111. We disagree.

II. Discussion

Section 1111 provides: “A conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of an accomplice unless it be corroborated by such other…