Garner v. State, 53577
| Decision Date | 12 January 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 53577,53577 |
| Citation | 545 S.W.2d 178 |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
| Parties | Stephen Don GARNER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
GREEN, Commissioner.
This appeal is from an order revoking probation. On October 4, 1971, appellant was convicted of burglary with intent to commit theft. Punishment was assessed at four years, probated. Condition (a) of the order of probation was that he commit no offense against the laws of this or any other State or of the United States.
On March 27, 1975 the State filed a motion to revoke probation. An amended motion was filed August 29, 1975, which added to the violations previously alleged the following allegation:
On October 29, 1975, appellant by his counsel filed the following exception to the amended motion 'Defendant excepts to such motion wherein it alleges that the defendant committed the offense of theft for the reason it does not apprise the defendant of sufficient facts to enable him to prepare a defense thereto.'
The record reflects that the cause came for hearing on the motion to revoke probation on October 29, 1975, and the State and defendant 'announced ready for the hearing before the court; and all preliminary matters having been disposed of, the following proceedings were had, to-wit . . .'
The State then read the motion to appellant, and the following proceedings were had:
'Sir, to this application, the amended motion to revoke probation, how do you plead, true or not true?
'THE DEFENDANT: Not true.
Evidence was then introduced, after which the court found that:
'. . . the defendant did on or about the 16th day of December, 1974, commit the offense of theft in Harris County, Texas, as alleged in the indictment for that offense that was filed in the 174th Criminal District Court of Harris County, Texas, in Cause No. 223,979.'
Limiting his finding of violation to the theft charge, the court revoked probation.
In his first ground, appellant contends the court abused its discretion in overruling his exception to the State's amended motion to revoke.
While the allegations in a motion to revoke probation do not require the same particularity of an indictment or information, in all fairness the allegations as to violation of probation should be fully and clearly set forth in the revocation motion, so that the defendant and his counsel might be informed as to that upon which he will be called to defend. Tamez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 534 S.W.2d 686; Graham v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 502 S.W.2d 809; Kuenstler v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 486 S.W.2d 367; Burkett v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 485 S.W.2d 578; Campbell v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 456 S.W.2d 918. When the allegations in the motion fail to fully inform the probationer, and the trial court refused to sustain an exception timely filed, the probationer is denied the rudiments of due process. Tamez v. State, supra; Graham v. State, supra; Kuenstler v. State, supra.
In the instant case the record reflects that although ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hill v. State
...variably deemed timely when urged prior to announcement of ready or so long as testimony has not yet begun. [E.g., Garner v. State, 545 S.W.2d 178 (Tex.Crim.App.1977).] That the above policies are fully effectuated thereby is implicit in these Thus, when the record reflects these policies h......
-
Moore v State
...v. State, 605 S.W.2d 275, 277 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (citing Gordon v. State, 575 S.W.2d 529 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Garner v. State, 545 S.W.2d 178 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977); Tamez v. State, 534 S.W.2d 686 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976); Campbell v. State, 456 S.W.2d 918 (Tex. Crim. App. 1970)). Addi......
-
Labelle v. State
...due process. Bradley v. State, 608 S.W.2d 652 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); Gordon v. State, 575 S.W.2d 529 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Garner v. State, 545 S.W.2d 178 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Barrow v. State, 505 S.W.2d 808 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Kuenstler v. State, 486 S.W.2d 367 (Tex.Cr.App.1972), and cases cited the......
-
Champion v. State
...See also Antwine v. State, 518 S.W.2d 830 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); Ablon v. State, 537 S.W.2d 267 (Tex.Cr.App.1976); Garner v. State, 545 S.W.2d 178 (Tex.Cr.App.1977). In Cotton v. State, 523 S.W.2d 673 (Tex.Cr.App.1975), it was held that a motion to revoke probation is not an indictment or infor......