Guillen v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Guillen v. State

442 S.W.2d 692, 1969 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1045

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJune 25, 1969

DocketNo. 42199

StatusPublished

This text of 442 S.W.2d 692 (Guillen v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Guillen v. State, 442 S.W.2d 692, 1969 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1045 (Tex. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

This is an appeal from a revocation of probation.

Appellant was placed on probation on May 20, 1964, after pleading guilty before the court to the offense of burglary and had his punishment assessed at six years. One of the conditions of his probation was that probationer would “abstain from drinking alcoholic beverages”. Motion to revoke was filed by the State alleging that appellant had violated conditions of his probation by, first, consuming intoxicating beverages, and secondly, by “committing an offense against the State of Texas by getting drunk in a public place.”

At the hearing on the motion, appellant testified that he drank “two or three” beers during his probationary period. This was sufficient to authorize a revocation of his probation, Perkins v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 386 S.W.2d 286. An employee of the “Nat Ballroom” and an Amarillo policeman testified as to appellant’s intoxicated condition in a public place on this occasion. This was an additional ground for revocation. We find no abuse of discretion in the court’s revocation of appellant’s probation.

Wicker v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 378 S.W.2d 332, relied upon by appellant, is inap-posite as it deals with a revocation of probation based solely upon the probationer’s having been charged with an offense. Such is not the case here as proof was offered of appellant’s guilt of the offense of being drunk in a public place, in addition to the admitted violation of consuming alcoholic beverages.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

WOODLEY, P. J., not participating.

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

OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

This is an appeal from a revocation of probation.

Appellant was placed on probation on May 20, 1964, after pleading guilty before the court to the offense of burglary and had his punishment assessed at six years. One of the conditions of his probation was that probationer would “abstain from drinking alcoholic beverages”. Motion to revoke was filed by the State alleging that appellant had violated conditions of his probation by, first, consuming intoxicating beverages, and secondly, by “committing an offense against the State of Texas by getting drunk in a public place.”

At the hearing on the motion, appellant testified that he drank “two or three” beers during his probationary period. This was sufficient to authorize a revocation of his probation, Perkins v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 386 S.W.2d 286. An employee of the “Nat Ballroom” and an Amarillo policeman testified as to appellant’s intoxicated condition in a public place on this occasion. This was an additional ground for revocation. We find no abuse of discretion in the court’s revocation of appellant’s probation.

Wicker v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 378 S.W.2d 332, relied upon by appellant, is inap-posite as it deals with a revocation of probation based solely upon the probationer’s having been charged with an offense. Such is not the case here as proof was offered of appellant’s guilt of the offense of being drunk in a public place, in addition to the admitted violation of consuming alcoholic beverages.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

WOODLEY, P. J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

442 S.W.2d 692, 1969 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1045, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guillen-v-state-texcrimapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack