Carnes v. State, 45046
| Decision Date | 08 March 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 45046,45046 |
| Citation | 478 S.W.2d 940 |
| Parties | Tommy Ray CARNES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
James P. Finstrom, Dallas, for appellant.
Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., and W. T. Westmoreland, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, and Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
This is an appeal from a revocation of probation.
Appellant was convicted for possession of marihuana in Dallas County on April 26, 1968, assessed three (3) years and placed on probation. Two of the conditions of his probation were that he
The State filed a motion to revoke probation on March 25, 1970, alleging that appellant violated both above stated conditions of his probation, to-wit: that 'on August 21, 1969, (he) received a five (5) year (probated sentence) in Denton County for unlawful possession of marihuana' and that he had 'failed to report to his probation officer since February 16, 1970.'
At the revocation hearing on September 28, 1970, appellant's probation was revoked on both grounds alleged in the State's motion to revoke.
The only question presented for review in a revocation of probation case is whether the trial court abused its discretion in revoking probation. Bennett v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 476 S.W.2d 281; Barnes v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 467 S.W.2d 437; Manning v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 412 S.W.2d 656; Seymore v. Beto, 5 Cir., 383 F.2d 384.
Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his probation on the grounds stated in the State's motion.
In its brief, the State abandons the Denton County offense as a basis for revocation and, therefore, no need exists to discuss it. The only remaining ground for revocation is appellant's failure to report to his probation officer.
Appellant claims that there was an agreement whereby his visits to the Denton County officer would also serve as reports to the Dallas County officer as well. Both probation officers testified and denied any agreement concerning such an arrangement. The Dallas County officer testified the terms of appellant's probation were explained to him, that he was required to report to him every month and that appellant had not done so for three months preceding the motion to revoke. Appellant did not testify nor offer...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Edmondson
...on an appeal from revocation of probation. See Whetstone v. State, 786 S.W.2d 361 (Tex.Crim.App.1990) (en banc); Carnes v. State, 478 S.W.2d 940 (Tex.Crim.App.1972). Similarly, in Dallas County Bail Bond Board v. Stein, 771 S.W.2d 577 (Tex.Ct.App.1989), the court held that a probated convic......
-
Flournoy v. State
...court. Espinoza v. State, 486 S.W.2d 315 (Tex.Cr.App.1972), Barber v. State, 486 S.W.2d 352, 354 (Tex.Cr.App.1972), Carnes v. State, 478 S.W.2d 940 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); see Isabell v. State, 494 S.W.2d 572, 573 (Tex.Cr.App.1973). Thus, as an evidentiary matter, a violation of a condition of p......
-
Leonard v. State, 44916
...Sec. 9, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P. Therefore, they present nothing for review. Rivello v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 476 S.W.2d 299; Carnes v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 478 S.W.2d 940 (1972). Finding no reversible error, the judgment is ...
-
Taylor v. State, 45524
...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. Sta......