Medlock v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Medlock v. State

718 S.W.2d 285, 1986 Tex. App. LEXIS 13065

CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas

DecidedOctober 22, 1986

DocketNo. 470-85

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 718 S.W.2d 285 (Medlock 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

Medlock v. State, 718 S.W.2d 285, 1986 Tex. App. LEXIS 13065 (Tex. 1986).

Pincite

Opinions

OPINION ON STATE’S MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

This is a probation revocation case involving inter alia the construction given Article 42.12, § 8(c), V.A.C.C.P., in Stanfield v. State, 638 S.W.2d 127 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1982) PDR granted, which the Dallas Court of Appeals followed in this cause. Medlock v. State, 688 S.W.2d 664 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1985).

Our opinion on original submission is withdrawn. This Court has reconsidered its prior decision in Stanfield v. State, delivered May 7, 1986, and has now concluded that § 8(c) is applicable though there are allegations that one or more other conditions of probation were violated. See Stanfield v. State, — S.W.2d - (Tex.Cr.App. No. 755-82, delivered October 22, 1986). Therefore, we disapprove the finding below that “section 8(c) does not address the situation in the case before us where failure to pay fees plus other grounds are alleged. Medlock, supra, at 665.

Accordingly, the State’s motion for rehearing is granted and, since the Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed the order revoking probation for violation of another condition of probation, we affirm its judgment.

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

OPINION ON STATE’S MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

This is a probation revocation case involving inter alia the construction given Article 42.12, § 8(c), V.A.C.C.P., in Stanfield v. State, 638 S.W.2d 127 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1982) PDR granted, which the Dallas Court of Appeals followed in this cause. Medlock v. State, 688 S.W.2d 664 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1985).

Our opinion on original submission is withdrawn. This Court has reconsidered its prior decision in Stanfield v. State, delivered May 7, 1986, and has now concluded that § 8(c) is applicable though there are allegations that one or more other conditions of probation were violated. See Stanfield v. State, — S.W.2d - (Tex.Cr.App. No. 755-82, delivered October 22, 1986). Therefore, we disapprove the finding below that “section 8(c) does not address the situation in the case before us where failure to pay fees plus other grounds are alleged. Medlock, supra, at 665.

Accordingly, the State’s motion for rehearing is granted and, since the Dallas Court of Appeals affirmed the order revoking probation for violation of another condition of probation, we affirm its judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

718 S.W.2d 285, 1986 Tex. App. LEXIS 13065, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/medlock-v-state-texcrimapp-1986.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack