Cardona v. State, 658-83

Citation665 S.W.2d 492
Decision Date14 March 1984
Docket NumberNo. 658-83,658-83
PartiesRobert Jay CARDONA, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas

Kristine C. Woldy, Houston, for appellant.

John B. Holmes, Jr., Dist. Atty., and Richard Mason and Frank Medina, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, Robert Huttash, State's Atty. and Cathleen R. Riedel, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

Before the court en banc.

OPINION ON APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

CAMPBELL, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the felony offense of driving while intoxicated and assessed a $500 fine and three years imprisonment in the Texas Department of Corrections. Imposition of sentence was suspended and appellant was placed on probation. Pursuant to an amendment to the terms and conditions of his probation, appellant was required to "attend [the] Houston Regional Council on Alcoholism until released by the Court." Probation was later revoked for his failure to attend the Council as required.

Appeal from the order revoking probation was taken to the Houston Fourteenth Court of Appeals, where the judgment of the trial court was affirmed. We granted appellant's petition for discretionary review to determine whether the evidence was sufficient to support revocation and whether the condition upon which his probation was revoked sufficiently apprised appellant of how he was to comply with same. We reverse.

Viewed in a light most favorable to the trial court's decision, the evidence shows that appellant testified that he received a copy of the amended term of probation ordering him to attend the Council; that he understood he was to attend, and that he failed to attend. The executive director of the Council testified there was no record of appellant's enrollment or attendance. The probation officer testified that on August 21, 1981, he talked with Mr. Loyd Butler of the Council, and made arrangements for Butler to see appellant on August 29. The probation officer then informed appellant that Butler would contact him to set up the exact time, location, and dates. Butler did not testify at the hearing. Appellant testified that he was never contacted by the Council and did not know when or where he was to attend. Additionally appellant testified that he called the Council office several times, but was told that the Council had no record of his required attendance.

Appellate review of an order revoking probation is limited to abuse of the trial court's discretion. Caddell v. State, 605 S.W.2d 275 (Tex.Cr.App.1980). In determining questions regarding sufficiency of the evidence in probation revocation cases, the burden of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence. Anderson v. State, 621 S.W.2d 805 (Tex.Cr.App.1981). When the State has failed to meet its burden of proof, the trial judge abuses his discretion in issuing an order to revoke probation. Walkovak v. State, 576 S.W.2d 643 (Tex.Cr.App.1979).

The central issue to be determined is whether the appellant was afforded due process as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In Harris v. State, 608 S.W.2d 229 (Tex.Cr.App.1980), this Court held that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking the defendant's probation on the ground that the defendant failed to "report to the probation officer as required."

In Harris, supra, Judge W.C. Davis opined:

"The order to revoke probation for violation of this condition cannot be sustained because this condition is so vague and indefinite that it cannot be enforced; it does not inform the probationer with sufficient certainty of what he is to do. [citations omitted.]" Harris, supra, at p. 230.

In Cotton v. State, 472 S.W.2d 526 (Tex.Cr.App.1971) it was held that a conviction stemming from an alleged violation of a condition requiring the probationer to "report to the probation officer as directed" was not supported by sufficient evidence. In concluding that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking probation on this ground, we held there was no evidence in the record as to when 1 the probationer was to have reported.

Campbell v. State, 420 S.W.2d 715 (Tex.Cr.App.1967) involved violation of a probation condition instructing the probationer to report to his probation officer as directed. Presiding Judge Onion, writing for the Court, held that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking probation, as no evidence was offered to show when the probationer was directed to report. It is significant to note that while there was testimony in Campbell, supra, that the probationer had failed to report for a number of months, there was insufficient evidence that he had ever been directed to report monthly, weekly, daily, or otherwise. As Judge Onion explained: "This situation points up the practicality of including specific reporting dates in the written conditions, a copy of which must be delivered to the probationer." Campbell, supra, at p. 716.

In Caddell, supra, Judge Clinton observed: "It is well settled that, though not the same as a criminal trial, a proceeding to revoke probation portends a possible deprivation of liberty, and as such, the application of appropriate due process of law is constitutionally required [citations omitted.]"

We see no meaningful distinction in the lack of specificity in the terms of probation in the cases cited ante and the condition in the instant case. Further, evidence adduced in the case before us is conspicuously devoid of any notice as to when, if ever, appellant was to attend the Houston Council on Alcoholism.

The Court of Appeals cited Salmons v. State, 571 S.W.2d 29 (Tex.Cr.App.1978) for the proposition that a trial court did not improperly delegate its authority to specify terms of probation to the Cenikor...

To continue reading

Request your trial
864 cases
  • Leonard v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • November 21, 2012
    ...apply fully in a Texas probation revocation hearing.”). 1.Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex.Crim.App.2006); Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493 (Tex.Crim.App.1984); Caddell v. State, 605 S.W.2d 275, 277 (Tex.Crim.App.1980). 2.Cardona, 665 S.W.2d at 493–94. 3.Ante, op. at 577. 4.A......
  • Lee v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • August 28, 1997
    ...whether the trial court has abused its discretion, we look to whether the State has met its burden of proof. See Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493-94 (Tex.Crim.App.1984). The State meets its burden when the greater weight of the evidence before the court creates a reasonable belief that......
  • Massey v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • March 3, 2022
    ...light most favorable to the trial court's ruling. Hacker v. State , 389 S.W.3d 860, 865 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) ; Cardona v. State , 665 S.W.2d 492, 493 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). If the State fails to meet its burden of proof, the trial court abuses its discretion by revoking community supervi......
  • Martinez v. State, NUMBER 13-17-00475-CR
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • November 1, 2018
    ...revoking community supervision if, as to every ground alleged, the State fails to meet its burden of proof. Cardona v. State , 665 S.W.2d 492, 493–94 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (en banc). In making this determination, we examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s find......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
21 books & journal articles
  • Punishment phase
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 1-2 Volume 2
    • May 5, 2022
    ...court cannot sustain a motion to revoke where the defendant has no instruction as to when and where he was to attend. Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). Requiring a probationer to obey the rules and regulations of a community based facility or program is not an imprope......
  • Table of cases
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas DWI Manual - 2015 Legal Principles
    • August 4, 2015
    ...826 (Tex. App. Houston [1st Dist.] 1988), §11:121 Campbell v. State , 5 S.W.3d 693 (Tex.Cr.App. 1999), §§14:90, 14:92 Cardona v. State , 665 S.W.2d 492 (Tex.Cr.App. 1984), §14:122 Carpenter v. State , 218 S.W.2d 207 (Tex.Crim.App. 1949), §16:14 Carranza v. State , 960 S.W.2d 76 (Tex.Crim.Ap......
  • Punishment Phase
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Criminal Lawyer's Handbook. Volume 2 - 2014 Contents
    • August 17, 2014
    ...court cannot sustain a motion to revoke where the defendant has no instruction as to when and where he was to attend. Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). Requiring a probationer to obey the rules and regulations of a community based facility or program is not an imprope......
  • Intoxication Offenses and Punishment
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas DWI Manual - 2015 Legal Principles
    • August 4, 2015
    ...State fails to meet its burden of proof, the trial court abuses its discretion in revoking community supervision. [ Cardona v. State , 665 S.W.2d 492, 493-94 (Tex.Cr.App. 1984).] When the trial court finds more than one violation of the conditions of community supervision, the revocation or......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT