Jason Paul Childs v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 2, 2007
• Docket: 09-07-00048-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

______________________

NO. 09-07-048 CR

JASON PAUL CHILDS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 96675

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Jason Paul Childs appeals from a judgment revoking his community supervision. He argues the State's motion to revoke did not meet the requirements of article 42.12, section 21(e), of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. ⁽¹⁾

The Motion to Revoke Probation stated as follows: "Comes now the State and moves that probation in this case be revoked for the reasons stated in the attached administrative hearing report which is incorporated herein and expressly made a part hereof for all purposes." The attached papers were "Administrative Hearing" documents that set out with specificity the alleged violations of community supervision. Appellant did not object below to the form or substance of the State's motion to revoke. Tex. R. App. 33.1(a)(1). Appellant did not preserve error.

Furthermore, under the circumstances, the motion to revoke satisfied statutory and due process requirements by providing him with sufficient notice of the alleged violations. See Labelle v. State, 720 S.W.2d 101, 104 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986) (The motion to revoke should fully and clearly set forth the alleged probation violations so that a defendant will be informed of that which he will be called upon to defend.). The allegations in a motion to revoke probation do not require the same particularity as required of an indictment or information. Id. Child's alleged violations, as were clearly set forth in the incorporated document, included the failure to report on July 18, 2006 and the failure to make any payments on fees totaling $875. The allegations were specific and provided him with sufficient notice of the alleged violations. Moreover, he pled true to both violations at the hearing on the motion to revoke. The trial court then asked whether he would "proceed today or reset it," and through counsel he stated he wanted to proceed. Appellant's issue is overruled. The judgment revoking community supervision is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

____________________________

DAVID GAULTNEY

Justice

Submitted on April 17, 2007

Opinion Delivered May 2, 2007

Do not publish

Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ.

1. Article 42.12, section 21(e), provides as follows:

A court retains jurisdiction to hold a hearing under Subsection (b) and to revoke, continue, or modify community supervision, regardless of whether the period of community supervision imposed on the defendant has expired, if before the expiration the attorney representing the state files a motion to revoke, continue, or modify community supervision and a capias is issued for the arrest of the defendant. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 21(e) (Vernon 2006).