Brooks v. State, 051999
| Citation | 995 S.W.2d 762 |
| Decision Date | 19 May 1999 |
| Docket Number | 04-98-00084-CR,No. 04-98-00083-C,04-98-00083-C |
| Parties | (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1999) Tracy BROOKS, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas |
From the County Court-at-Law No. 8, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 650170, 654848, Honorable Karen Crouch, Judge Presiding
Sitting: Phil Hardberger, Chief Justice, Tom Rickhoff, Justice, Alma L. Lopez, Justice
Opinion by: Alma L. Lopez, Justice
This is an appeal from the trial court's order to revoke appellant's probation for class B misdemeanor offenses of criminal mischief and terroristic threat. See generally TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. 30.05, 22.07 (Vernon 1994). On June 4, 1997, appellant, Tracy Brooks, waived a jury trial for both offenses and entered pleas of nolo contendere. Appellant was placed on one year probation for both offenses. On October 17, 1997, the State submitted its motion to enter an adjudication of guilty and revoke probation. The trial court found appellant in violation of a term of his probation, specifically, failing to report to his probation officer. The trial court sentenced appellant to six months work release and fined him $350.00 for the offense of criminal mischief, and $200.00 for the offense of terroristic threat. We affirm.
Appellant alleges that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that he failed to report to his probation officer based solely on the assertions of the State prosecutor. He asserts that while the probation officer was present in the court, he was not called to testify. He points to probation condition number 5 which reads as follows:
Report, in person, to the Supervision Officer of Bexar [County], Texas on the 4th day of each month and when said day of the Month falls on Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, then you will report on the next working day or as directed by the court/ [sic] Supervision Officer; and conduct yourself in a proper and orderly manner;. [sic]
Appellant contends that such a condition effectively transferred the responsibility of appellant's appearance to the probation officer. The State, on the other hand, contends that appellant's plea of true to the allegation of a probation violation was sufficient to support revocation. We agree with the State.
When reviewing an order to revoke probation, the sole question before the appellate court is whether the trial court abused its discretion. Jackson v. State, 645 S.W.2d 303, 305 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983); Friedl v. State, 773 S.W.2d 72, 73 (Tex. App.-Houston 1989, no pet.). In a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Taylor v. State
-
Lackey v. State, No. 08-08-00012-CR (Tex. App. 12/16/2009)
...plea of true, standing alone, is sufficient to support revocation. Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979); Brooks v. State, 995 S.W.2d 762, 763 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1999, no Here, the State's amended motion to revoke alleged eleven violations: (1) Appellant reported to......
- Ray v. State
- Rogers v. State