Ernest Herrera Salazar v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Ernest Herrera Salazar v. State

DecidedJune 29, 1994

Docket03-92-00627-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Ernest Herrera Salazar v. State (Ernest Herrera Salazar v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ernest Herrera Salazar v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS,

AT AUSTIN

NO. 3-92-627-CR

ERNEST HERRERA SALAZAR,

APPELLANT

vs.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY, 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 10,237, HONORABLE CHARLES R. RAMSAY, JUDGE PRESIDING

PER CURIAM

In 1985, appellant was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child and sentenced to imprisonment for ten years. Act of May 29, 1983, 68th Leg., R.S., ch. 977, § 3, 1983 Tex. Gen. Laws 5311, 5315 (Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.021, since amended). The district court subsequently suspended further imposition of sentence and placed appellant on probation. In November 1992, the district court revoked appellant's probation on the State's motion and reimposed sentence.

In his only point of error, appellant urges that the district court should have continued him on probation, or at least reduced the sentence imposed, because the probation violations proved were minor and because he successfully completed almost seven years of probation. Once a violation of the conditions of probation is shown, the decision to revoke or continue probation is left to the "substantially absolute" discretion of the trial court. Flournoy v. State, 589 S.W.2d 705, 708 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). The decision whether to reduce the term of imprisonment originally assessed is also left to the discretion of the trial court. Cannon v. State, 537 S.W.2d 31, 32 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976). No abuse of discretion is shown in this cause.

Appellant also urges, and the State concedes, that he has not been given credit for the time he spent in prison prior to shock probation and for the time he was in jail following his arrest for the probation violations. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.03, § 2(a) (West Supp. 1994). The order revoking probation is reformed to reflect a time credit of 114 days against the sentence. In all other respects, the point of error is overruled.

As reformed, the order revoking probation is affirmed.

Before Justices Powers, Aboussie and Jones

Reformed and, as Reformed, Affirmed

Filed: June 29, 1994

Do Not Publish

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS,

AT AUSTIN

NO. 3-92-627-CR

ERNEST HERRERA SALAZAR,

APPELLANT

vs.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY, 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 10,237, HONORABLE CHARLES R. RAMSAY, JUDGE PRESIDING

PER CURIAM

In 1985, appellant was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child and sentenced to imprisonment for ten years. Act of May 29, 1983, 68th Leg., R.S., ch. 977, § 3, 1983 Tex. Gen. Laws 5311, 5315 (Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.021, since amended). The district court subsequently suspended further imposition of sentence and placed appellant on probation. In November 1992, the district court revoked appellant's probation on the State's motion and reimposed sentence.

In his only point of error, appellant urges that the district court should have continued him on probation, or at least reduced the sentence imposed, because the probation violations proved were minor and because he successfully completed almost seven years of probation. Once a violation of the conditions of probation is shown, the decision to revoke or continue probation is left to the "substantially absolute" discretion of the trial court. Flournoy v. State, 589 S.W.2d 705, 708 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). The decision whether to reduce the term of imprisonment originally assessed is also left to the discretion of the trial court. Cannon v. State, 537 S.W.2d 31, 32 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976). No abuse of discretion is shown in this cause.

Appellant also urges, and the State concedes, that he has not been given credit for the time he spent in prison prior to shock probation and for the time he was in jail following his arrest for the probation violations. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.03, § 2(a) (West Supp. 1994). The order revoking probation is reformed to reflect a time credit of 114 days against the sentence. In all other respects, the point of error is overruled.

As reformed, the order revoking probation is affirmed.

Before Justices Powers, Aboussie and Jones

Reformed and, as Reformed, Affirmed

Filed: June 29, 1994

Do Not Publish

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ernest Herrera Salazar v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ernest-herrera-salazar-v-state-texapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack