Taylor v. State

482 S.W.2d 246, 1972 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1876
CourtCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas
DecidedJuly 12, 1972
Docket45524
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 482 S.W.2d 246 (Taylor 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
Taylor v. State, 482 S.W.2d 246, 1972 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1876 (Tex. 1972).

Opinion

OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

This is an appeal from an order revoking probation.

The record reflects that appellant entered a plea of guilty to the offense of Sodomy on April 7, 1969; his punishment was assessed at five (5) years, and he was placed on probation. No appeal was taken from that convictiqn. See Article 42.12, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.

One of the conditions of probation was that he “commit no offenses against the laws of this or any other State or the United States.”

At a hearing on March 26, 1970, the appellant’s probation was revoked on proof in support of the State’s motion which alleged that appellant committed the offense of shoplifting.

Appellant’s two contentions on appeal are that the original conviction for Sodomy is void 1 because the statute is unconstitutional and that the second count of the indictment charging the said offense was vague and indefinite.

*247 This is a collateral attack on the judgment on which probation was granted and is without merit. It has long been the rule in this State that the appellant may not rely upon errors which allegedly occurred at his original trial on an appeal from his revocation of probation. Carnes v. State, 478 S.W.2d 940 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); Hungerford v. State, 474 S.W.2d 242 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); McAlpine v. State, 462 S.W.2d 315 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Higdon v. State, 436 S.W.2d 541 (Tex.Cr.App.1968); Hoskins v. State, 425 S.W.2d 825 (Tex.Cr.App.1967); Campbell v. State, 420 S.W.2d 715 (Tex.Cr.App.1967).

The judgment is affirmed.

1

. This Court has held that Article 524, Vernon’s Ann.P.C. is not unconstitutional. Pruett v. State, 463 S.W.2d 191.

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

Related

Janis Wells Pierce v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2003
Pierce v. State
113 S.W.3d 431 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2003)
Ex Parte Sanders
588 S.W.2d 383 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1979)
Chacon v. State
558 S.W.2d 874 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1977)
Basaldua v. State
558 S.W.2d 2 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1977)
Rice v. State
548 S.W.2d 725 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1977)
Martinez v. State
494 S.W.2d 545 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1973)
Burrell v. State
492 S.W.2d 482 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
482 S.W.2d 246, 1972 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1876, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-state-texcrimapp-1972.