Figgins v. State, 50722
| Decision Date | 15 October 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 50722,50722 |
| Citation | 528 S.W.2d 261 |
| Parties | Leslie FIGGINS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
Ronald E. Walker, Jr., Amarillo, for appellant.
Tom Curtis, Dist. Atty. and Bruce Sadler, Asst. Dist. Atty., Amarillo, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., and David S. McAngus, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
This is an appeal from an order revoking probation.
Appellant pled guilty to burglary with intent to commit theft on October 17, 1974, for an offense committed July 26, 1974. His punishment was assessed at four years, probated. One of the terms of his probation was that he 'voluntarily commit himself to Vernon State Drug Center for a period of time not less than six (6) months nor more than eighteen (18) months' and that he 'be released only by the staff of said facility.'
A motion to revoke probation was filed on January 29, 1975. This motion was amended on February 3, 1975. The amended motion alleged that the appellant did not 'voluntarily participate in the Vernon Drug Center Program for a period of time not less than six (6) months' and that 'the said Leslie Figgins while at the Vernon State Drug Center engaged in disruptive behavior and failed to voluntarily participate in the Vernon Drug Center Program for a period of time not less than six (6) months.' A hearing on the motion to revoke was held February 12, 1975.
The appellant urges that there is a variance between the language of the motion to revoke and the language of the original condition of probation which was allegedly violated; that the motion to revoke was so vague and ambiguous as to be invalid, and that there was insufficient evidence to show that the appellant violated the terms of the probation.
Appellant first contends that because of the variance between the condition of probation and the motion to revoke probation, the State did not prove that the appellant violated any condition of probation. One condition of the appellant's probation was that he 'voluntarily commit' himself to the Vernon Drug Center for a minimum period of six months. The revocation motion alleged that the appellant had violated the above condition by not Voluntarily participating in the Vernon Drug Center program for a minimum of six months. The revocation motion also alleged that he did not participate because he had engaged in disruptive behavior while at the center.
We find that there is no variance between the conditions of probation and the motion to recoke. When the condition that the appellant 'voluntarily commit' himself to the drug center is construed as a whole, it means that the appellant will not only commit himself to the center in the sense of placing himself in the custody of the center, but also that he will commit himself in the sense of taking part in the programs offered by the center. The probation condition would have been meaningless had it only meant that the appellant stay within the confines of the drug center for a period of six months; the court could well have committed him to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davenport v. State
...or information, but need only give fair notice to the probationer of the condition of probation allegedly violated. Figgins v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 528 S.W.2d 261. In fact, should the proof adduced during the proceedings vary from the motion to revoke probation on file, the trial court is em......
-
Lee v. State
...rules and guidelines of the meeting or program or engaged in disruptive behavior during the meeting or program. See Figgins v. State, 528 S.W.2d 261, 263 (Tex.Crim.App.1975); Ott v. State, 690 S.W.2d 337, 339 (Tex.App.--Eastland 1985, pet. Appellant did physically appear at the meetings wit......
-
Ablon v. State, 52171
...such pleadings give the probationer fair notice of the allegations against him so that he may prepare a defense. See Figgins v. State, 528 S.W.2d 261 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); Antwine v. State, 518 S.W.2d 830 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); Fowler v. State, 509 S.W.2d 871 There was no motion to quash the revoc......
-
Austin v. State
...to revoke must give the defendant fair notice of the allegations against him so that he can prepare a defense. Figgins v. State, 528 S.W.2d 261, 263 (Tex.Crim.App.1975). Here, the question—one of first impression in Texas—is whether a motion styled “motion to proceed with adjudication of gu......