Ex parte Moffett
| Decision Date | 20 October 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 52635,52635 |
| Citation | 542 S.W.2d 184 |
| Parties | Ex parte Grady MOFFETT. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Ted Butler, Dist. Atty. and Douglas C. Young, Asst. Dist. Atty., San Antonio, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., David S. McAngus, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
DALLY, Commissioner.
This is a post conviction habeas corpus proceeding filed pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07, V.A.C.C.P. in which the petitioner collaterally attacks an order revoking probation. If the order revoking probation is based on no evidence--rather than merely insufficient evidence--there is a violation of the due process clause of the United States Constitution and a collateral attack on the order of revocation would be proper. The pertinent facts to be considered follow.
On June 19, 1973, after the appellant entered a plea of guilty before a jury in Cause 73--CR--496, he was found guilty of the offense of robbery. The jury assessed punishment of imprisonment for 10 years and recommended that the appellant be granted probation; probation was granted by the court.
On June 20, 1973, the appellant, after entering a plea of guilty before the court in Cause 73--CR--620--B, was found guilty of the offense of robbery, which was committed on December 16, 1972. The court set punishment of imprisonment for 10 years, and the appellant was sentenced after he waived the time for filing of motions for new trial and in arrest of judgment.
A motion was then filed to revoke probation in Cause 73--CR--496. The sole ground for revocation alleged that 'on or about the 20th day of June, A.D.1973 . . . the defendant was convicted of the felony offense of robbery by assault . . .' in Cause 73--CR--620--B. On June 20, 1973, the court revoked probation and sentenced the appellant, the sentences in both causes to be served concurrently. No appeals were taken either from the judgment of conviction in Cause 73--CR--620--B, the judgment when probation was granted in Cause 73--CR--496, or the order revoking probation in Cause 73--CR--496.
The offense which resulted in the conviction in Cause 73--CR--620--B was committed prior to the conviction and the granting of probation in Cause 73--CR--496. The appellant argues that evidence of the commission of the offense which resulted in the conviction in Cause 73--CR--620--B, since it occurred before he was granted probation, could not be used to revoke probation in Cause 73--CR--496. With this contention we agree.
The condition of probation in Cause 73--CR--496 is that the probationer 'neither commit nor be Convicted of any offense against the laws of Texas . . .' The statutory condition of probation is that a probationer shall '(c) ommit no offense against the laws of this State or of any other State or of the United States.' Article 42.12, Sec. 6 a, V.A.C.C.P. The appellant urges that the part of the condition imposed that provides the probationer not be Convicted of any offense is unreasonable and void. 1
All of the statutory conditions of probation require certain conduct of the probationer or prohibit certain conduct by the probationer following the granting of probation. The statutory conditions of probation contained in Article 42.12, Sec. 6, V.A.C.C.P., are:
'(a) Commit no offense against the laws of this State or of any other State or of the United States;
'(b) Avoid injuries or vicious habits;
'(c) Avoid persons or places of disreputable or harmful character;
'(d) Report to the probation officer as directed;
'(e) Permit the probation officer to visit him at his home or elsewhere;
'(f) Work faithfully at suitable employment as far as possible;
'(g) Remain within a specified place;
'(h) Pay his fine, if one be assessed, and all court costs whether a fine be assessed or not, in one or several sums, and make restitution or reparation in any sum that the court shall determine; and
'(i) Support his dependents.'
The condition that the probationer not be Convicted of an offense is not consonant with the statutory conditions because it is not dependent on the appellant's conduct following the granting of probation. This is in contrast with the statutory condition that the probationer Commit no offense, which is dependent on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moore v. Thaler
...previously raised and rejected on direct appeal. Ex parte Acosta, 672 S.W.2d 470, 472 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (citing Ex Parte Moffett, 542 S.W.2d 184 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976)); see also Gonzalez v. State, 994 S.W.2d 369, 372 (Tex. App. — Waco 1999) (noting that a claim previously raised and r......
-
Ex parte Williams
...may not be collaterally attacked. In Ex parte Dantzler, 571 S.W.2d 536 (Tex.Cr.App.1978), it was acknowledged that in Ex parte Moffett, 542 S.W.2d 184 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), a "no evidence" exception had been created to the foregoing general rule. In Moffett this Court allowed the defendant to ......
-
Ex parte Martin
...plea of guilty or nolo contendere. At 792. Neither Laflore nor Thornton holds that it does. The opinion of the Court in Ex parte Moffett, 542 S.W.2d 184 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), the holding of which we found controlled disposition of LaFlore, was delivered October 20, 1976--more than a year and s......
-
Dinnery v. State
...480 S.W.2d 692 (Tex.Cr.App.1972). See also generally Sosa v. United States, 550 F.2d 244 (5 Cir. 1977). However, in Ex parte Moffett, 542 S.W.2d 184 (Tex.Cr.App.1976), this Court determined that upon a showing that there is No evidence on which his conviction could be based, a habeas petiti......
-
Double jeopardy
...does not preclude the state from seeking revocation by proof of the conduct that was the basis of the new offense. Ex parte Moffett, 542 S.W.2d 184 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976). §8:83 Parole Revocation Proceedings A determination by a hearing examiner of insufficient evidence to revoke parole doe......
-
Double Jeopardy
...does not preclude the state from seeking revocation by proof of the conduct that was the basis of the new offense. Ex parte Moffett, 542 S.W.2d 184 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976). §8:83 ParoleRevocation Proceedings A determination by a hearing examiner of insufficient evidence to revoke parole does......
-
Punishment Phase
...does not preclude the state from seeking revocation by proof of the conduct that was the basis of the new offense. Ex parte Moffett, 542 S.W.2d 184 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976). A probationer’s due process rights are not violated by being revoked after a second revocation hearing, based upon grou......
-
Table of Cases
...8:43, 13:52, 13:56 Ex parte Mitchell, 977 S.W.2d 575 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997), cert. denied , 525 U.S. 873 (1998), §8:11 Ex parte Moffett, 542 S.W.2d 184 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976), §§8:82, 20:96.4 Ex parte Montgomery, 571 S.W.2d 182 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978), §20:43 Ex parte Moore, 395 S.W.3d 152, ......