Hayes v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Hayes v. State

449 S.W.2d 233

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedJanuary 7, 1970

DocketNo. 42680

StatusPublished

This text of 449 S.W.2d 233 (Hayes 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

Hayes v. State, 449 S.W.2d 233 (Tex. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

.OPINION

ONION, Judge.

This is an appeal from a revocation of probation.

On March 22, 1968, the appellant entered a plea of guilty before the court to an indictment charging him with the offense of felony theft after having waived trial by jury. On that same date the imposition of the sentence was suspended and the appellant placed on probation subject to certain terms and conditions. At the time the appellant entered his plea of guilty he was represented by retained counsel. On January 10, 1969, the State filed a motion to revoke probation. On April 18, 1969, probation was revoked after a hearing and sentence was pronounced. Notice of appeal was given.

Appellant is now at large on an appeal bond approved on October 13, 1969. The transcription of the court reporter’s notes from the hearing on the State’s motion to revoke probation is not in the record before us.

No appellant brief was filed in the trial court.

Without a transcription of the court reporter’s notes, we are not in a position to determine that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking probation.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

.OPINION

ONION, Judge.

This is an appeal from a revocation of probation.

On March 22, 1968, the appellant entered a plea of guilty before the court to an indictment charging him with the offense of felony theft after having waived trial by jury. On that same date the imposition of the sentence was suspended and the appellant placed on probation subject to certain terms and conditions. At the time the appellant entered his plea of guilty he was represented by retained counsel. On January 10, 1969, the State filed a motion to revoke probation. On April 18, 1969, probation was revoked after a hearing and sentence was pronounced. Notice of appeal was given.

Appellant is now at large on an appeal bond approved on October 13, 1969. The transcription of the court reporter’s notes from the hearing on the State’s motion to revoke probation is not in the record before us.

No appellant brief was filed in the trial court.

Without a transcription of the court reporter’s notes, we are not in a position to determine that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking probation.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

449 S.W.2d 233, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hayes-v-state-texcrimapp-1970.