Patterson v. State

487 S.W.2d 736, 1972 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2421
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedDecember 6, 1972
Docket46265
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 487 S.W.2d 736 (Patterson 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
Patterson v. State, 487 S.W.2d 736, 1972 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2421 (Tex. 1972).

Opinion

OPINION

DAVIS, Commissioner.

This is an appeal from an order revoking probation.

On April 10, 1970, appellant entered a plea of guilty before the court to the offense of burglary. The punishment was assessed at six years, but the imposition of sentence was suspended and appellant was granted probation.

On November 23, 1971, the State filed a motion to revoke probation, alleging numerous violations of conditions set forth in the judgment of probation including that appellant “(a) commit no offense against the laws of this or any other State or the United States.”

On February 18, 1972, the court, after a hearing, revoked probation finding that appellant had violated the terms of his probation.

Appellant complains that the stipulation of evidence in the original conviction provided for introduction of “other documentary evidence” and that the transcription of the court reporter’s notes reflects “any other documentary evidence.”

By failing to appeal when he was placed on probation, appellant waived his right to a review of his original trial. Wise v. State, 477 S.W.2d 578; Brooks v. State, 459 S.W.2d 640; Hoskins v. State, 425 S.W.2d 825. See Articles 42.12, Sec. 8, and 44.08, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.

Appellant’s remaining two contentions in which he attacks the sufficiency of the evidence and complains that his plea was induced by an assistant district attorney are likewise directed to the original conviction and for the reason heretofore discussed are without merit.

Finding no abuse of discretion, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.

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

Related

Garcia v. State
549 S.W.3d 335 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2018)
Hargesheimer, Ronald T.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2006
Hargesheimer v. State
182 S.W.3d 906 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 2006)
Rodriguez v. State
20 S.W.3d 857 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2000)
Manuel v. State
994 S.W.2d 658 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1999)
Dinnery v. State
592 S.W.2d 343 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
487 S.W.2d 736, 1972 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patterson-v-state-texcrimapp-1972.