Cotton v. State, 44222
| Decision Date | 09 November 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 44222,44222 |
| Parties | Leroy COTTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Holt & Tatum, Nacogdoches, for appellant.
Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
This appeal is from an order revoking probation.
The record reflects that on May 12, 1969, appellant entered a plea of guilty before the court to the offense of assault with intent to murder and punishment was assessed at 5 years. Imposition of the sentence was suspended, and appellant was placed on probation.
Among such conditions of probation were:
'(d) Report to the Probation Office as directed;
(i) * * * Pay Court Cost in amount of $54.20 within 15 days and $10.00 per month during probation period beginning July 1, 1969, in accord with Art: 42:12 Sec. 6a Code Criminal Procedure (Vernon's Ann.C.C.P.).'
On January 12, 1971, a motion to revoke probation was filed. Such motion alleged that the appellant had violated the terms of his probation in that he
On February 10, 1971, a hearing was conducted on the motion to revoke probation, after which the trial court granted the motion. Appellant was sentenced and gave notice of appeal.
The appellant contends the evidence is insufficient to sustain revocation of probation on either of the grounds alleged and the court abused its discretion in doing so.
With regard to the failure to report to the probation department as directed, there is no evidence in the record as to when appellant was to report. Therefore, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking probation on this ground. Campbell v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 420 S.W.2d 715.
With regard to the payments into the probation department, the order states that these were to begin July 1, 1969; it does not indicate on what date the subsequent monthly payments were to be made.
Defendant's Exhibit No. 1 entitled 'Probation Record' was admitted into evidence. This appears to be a record kept by the district clerk showing payments made by the appellant. It shows payments of $54.20, listed as court costs, and $80.00, listed as probation fee, on one date; $10.00 payments made on six other dates; and the payment of $29.50 on the final date shown on the exhibit, this being December 2, 1970.
The state...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kuenstler v. State
...Cox v. State, 445 S.W.2d 200 (Tex.Cr.App.1969) (concurring opinion); Pool v. State, 471 S.W.2d 863 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Cotton v. State, 472 S.W.2d 526 (Tex.Cr.App.1971). We agree and determine that it is unnecessary to discuss appellant's contention as to the condition regarding restitution.......
-
Standley v. State
...He cites De Leon v. State, 466 S.W.2d 573 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Campbell v. State, 420 S.W.2d 715 (Tex.Cr.App.1967); Cotton v. State, 472 S.W.2d 526 (Tex.Cr.App.1971). He also contends the other probationary condition was vague and uncertain, as it did not advise him whose permission he had to......
-
Curtis v. State, 53415
...(Tex.Cr.App.1974); DeLeon v. State, 466 S.W.2d 573 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Brown v. State, 508 S.W.2d 366 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Cotton v. State, 472 S.W.2d 526 (Tex.Cr.App.1971). There is not sufficient evidence, if any, to support the allegation that the appellant violated condition of probation 1......
-
Hille v. State
...that it cannot be enforced; it does not inform the probationer with sufficient certainty of what he is to do."); Cotton v. State, 472 S.W.2d 526, 528 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971) ("We conclude that the state did not meet its burden to prove that appellant's failure to pay probation fees was willf......
-
Punishment phase
...to report to the supervision officer, a condition to “report as directed” cannot sustain a revocation of the probation. Cotton v. State, 472 S.W.2d 526 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971). Where a defendant appears at the probation officer’s office but does not cooperate in answering the officer’s quest......
-
Punishment Phase
...to report to the supervision officer, a condition to “report as directed” cannot sustain a revocation of the probation. Cotton v. State, 472 S.W.2d 526 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971). Where a defendant appears at the probation officer’s office but does not cooperate in answering the officer’s quest......
-
Punishment Phase
...to report to the supervision officer, a condition to “report as directed” cannot sustain a revocation of the probation. Cotton v. State, 472 S.W.2d 526 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971). PUNISHMENT PHASE §20:96 Tൾඑൺඌ Cඋංආංඇൺඅ Lൺඐඒൾඋ’ඌ Hൺඇൽൻඈඈ 20-100 Where a defendant appears at the probation officer’......
-
Punishment Phase
...to report to the supervision officer, a condition to “report as directed” cannot sustain a revocation of the probation. Cotton v. State, 472 S.W.2d 526 (Tex. Crim. App. 1971). Where a defendant appears at the probation officer’s office but does not cooperate in answering the officer’s quest......