Cole v. State
| Decision Date | 14 February 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 59957,59957,1 |
| Citation | 578 S.W.2d 127 |
| Parties | Emma Jewel COLE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Melvyn Carson Bruder, Dallas, for appellant.
Henry M. Wade, Dist. Atty. and Stephen J. Wilensky, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, for the State.
Before ONION, P. J., and PHILLIPS and TOM G. DAVIS, JJ.
Appeal is taken from an order revoking probation.
On March 1, 1974, appellant entered a plea of guilty to the offense of burglary of a habitation. Punishment was assessed at three years, probated.
On September 8, 1975, the State filed a motion to revoke appellant's probation, alleging, inter alia, that the appellant violated a condition of her probation in that she failed to report as directed in July, August, and September, 1975. The appellant pled true to this allegation, but was allowed to present "circumstances" for the court's consideration. The trial court revoked the probation, and reduced punishment to two years.
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in not withdrawing the appellant's plea of true when defensive issues were raised. The appellant also maintains that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that the appellant failed to report as alleged.
In Roberson v. State, 549 S.W.2d 749, this Court held that the trial court should have withdrawn a plea of true when the probationer took the stand and raised a defensive issue. The Court cited Gates v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 543 S.W.2d 360, and Woodberry v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 547 S.W.2d 629, in support of this holding. In Roberson, the State alleged that the probationer had committed a burglary, and thus violated a condition of his probation. The probationer pled true to the allegation, but testified that he had no intent to commit theft when he entered the habitation. Although this Court affirmed the revocation on other grounds, it held that the trial court should have withdrawn the plea and entered a plea of not true.
In Moon v. State, 572 S.W.2d 681, this Court was faced with the similar situation of whether a trial court is obligated to withdraw a plea of guilty when the evidence raises defensive issues. This Court held that when the defendant waives a jury trial and pleads guilty to the trial court, the trial court has no duty to withdraw the plea sua sponte even if the evidence raises defensive issues. The Court stated:
Those prior cases reaching a different result included Gates v. State, supra, and Woodberry v. State, supra, relied on by the Court in Roberson.
A probationer is not entitled to a jury at the hearing to revoke his probation. Article 42.12, Sec. 8(a), V.A.C.C.P.; Valdez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 508 S.W.2d 842. In probation revocations, just as in guilty pleas after a waiver of jury trial, the trial court is the sole trier of facts. Battle v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 571 S.W.2d 20; Grant v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 566 S.W.2d 954; Kelley v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 550 S.W.2d 69. As the Court noted in Moon, the trial court must make its findings after consideration of all evidence presented, including defensive issues. See Houlihan v. State,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rogers v. State
...plea, without more, would have been sufficient in itself to sustain an order revoking the appellant's probation. See, Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Clapper v. State, 562 S.W.2d 250 (Tex.Cr.App.1978).3 One could infer from all of the above that the trial court conditi......
-
Moore v State
...to support the trial court's order of revocation. See Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979); Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979); Hays v. State, 933 S.W.2d 659, 661 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1996, no pet.). And once a plea of t......
-
Killian v. State
...1984)("[A] plea of 'true' does constitute evidence and sufficient proof to support the enhancement allegation."); Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979)("[S]ufficiency of the evidence could not be challenged in the face of a plea of true."); Mitchell v. State, 482 S.W.2d 22......
-
Lackey v. State, No. 08-08-00012-CR (Tex. App. 12/16/2009)
...of whether the evidence supported the court's findings on allegations 1, 2, 3, 9, and 10. See Moses, 590 S.W.2d at 470; Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979); Williams v. State, 910 S.W.2d 83, 86 (Tex. App.-El Paso 1995, no pet.); Battles v. State, 626 S.W.2d......
-
Punishment Phase
...to revoke is sufficient where the defendant enters a plea of “true” to any of the allegations in a petition to revoke. Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979 [Panel Op.]). A plea of “true” to a revocation petition must be unequivocally voluntary. LeBlanc v. State, 768 S.W.2d 88......
-
Punishment phase
...to revoke is sufficient where the defendant enters a plea of “true” to any of the allegations in a petition to revoke. Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979 [Panel Op.]). A plea of “true” to a revocation petition must be unequivocally voluntary. LeBlanc v. State, 768 S.W.2d 88......
-
Punishment Phase
...to revoke is sufficient where the defendant enters a plea of “true” to any of the allegations in a petition to revoke. Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979 [Panel Op.]). A plea of “true” to a revocation petition must be unequivocally voluntary. LeBlanc v. State, 768 S.W.2d 88......
-
Punishment Phase
...to revoke is sufficient where the defendant enters a plea of “true” to any of the allegations in a petition to revoke. Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979 [Panel Op.]). A plea of “true” to a revocation petition must be unequivocally voluntary. LeBlanc v. State, 768 S.W.2d 88......