Hood v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Hood v. State

458 S.W.2d 662, 1970 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1225

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedOctober 21, 1970

Docket43409

StatusPublished

Cited by40 cases

This text of 458 S.W.2d 662 (Hood 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

Hood v. State, 458 S.W.2d 662, 1970 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1225 (Tex. 1970).

Pincite

Opinions

OPINION

DOUGLAS, Judge.

On February 1, 1968, appellant was convicted of the offense of attempting to pass a forged instrument and the punishment assessed was two years, probated. On December 22, 1969, the State filed a motion to revoke the order granting probation. A hearing was had on said motion resulting in the revocation of appellant’s probation. Appellant has prosecuted this appeal of the revocation order.

Among the conditions of the appellant’s probation was that he commit no offense against the laws of this or any other state or of the United States. In its motion to revoke, the State alleged that on or about the Sth day of October, 1969, appellant did unlawfully carry on and about his person, a pistol. The evidence showed that appellant was seen outside a nightclub by a police officer and another witness. It appeared that appellant took a pistol from his pocket and handed it to his brother. The court concluded from the evidence that appellant did have the pistol in his possession.

Appellant contends that since he was not convicted of the offense alleged in the motion his probation could not be revoked. It is his contention that the trial court may not, without a jury trial, summarily find that probationer violated the terms of his probation.

It is well settled that a proceeding to revoke probation is not a “trial” as the term is used by the Constitution in reference to criminal cases, and hence appellant is not entitled to a jury trial therein. Wilson v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 228, 240 [663]*663S.W.2d 774; Jones v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 24, 261 S.W.2d 317, cert. denied 346 U.S. 836, 74 S.Ct. 53, 98 L.Ed. 358; Manning v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 412 S.W.2d 656. Furthermore, where a motion to revoke probation is filed alleging that the deferdant has committed an offense, he is not entitled to a jury trial on the issue of whether he is guilty of the offense alleged for revocation. Shelby v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 434 S.W.2d 871, and Jones v. State, supra.

From the evidence presented at the hearing, the court was authorized in revoking appellant’s probation. See Gossett v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 52, 282 S.W.2d 59.

There being no showing that the trial court abused its discretion, the judgment is affirmed.

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

OPINION

DOUGLAS, Judge.

On February 1, 1968, appellant was convicted of the offense of attempting to pass a forged instrument and the punishment assessed was two years, probated. On December 22, 1969, the State filed a motion to revoke the order granting probation. A hearing was had on said motion resulting in the revocation of appellant’s probation. Appellant has prosecuted this appeal of the revocation order.

Among the conditions of the appellant’s probation was that he commit no offense against the laws of this or any other state or of the United States. In its motion to revoke, the State alleged that on or about the Sth day of October, 1969, appellant did unlawfully carry on and about his person, a pistol. The evidence showed that appellant was seen outside a nightclub by a police officer and another witness. It appeared that appellant took a pistol from his pocket and handed it to his brother. The court concluded from the evidence that appellant did have the pistol in his possession.

Appellant contends that since he was not convicted of the offense alleged in the motion his probation could not be revoked. It is his contention that the trial court may not, without a jury trial, summarily find that probationer violated the terms of his probation.

It is well settled that a proceeding to revoke probation is not a “trial” as the term is used by the Constitution in reference to criminal cases, and hence appellant is not entitled to a jury trial therein. Wilson v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 228, 240 [663]*663S.W.2d 774; Jones v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 24, 261 S.W.2d 317, cert. denied 346 U.S. 836, 74 S.Ct. 53, 98 L.Ed. 358; Manning v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 412 S.W.2d 656. Furthermore, where a motion to revoke probation is filed alleging that the deferdant has committed an offense, he is not entitled to a jury trial on the issue of whether he is guilty of the offense alleged for revocation. Shelby v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 434 S.W.2d 871, and Jones v. State, supra.

From the evidence presented at the hearing, the court was authorized in revoking appellant’s probation. See Gossett v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 52, 282 S.W.2d 59.

There being no showing that the trial court abused its discretion, the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

458 S.W.2d 662, 1970 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hood-v-state-texcrimapp-1970.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack