Horman v. State
| Decision Date | 24 January 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 40978,40978 |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
| Parties | Theodore Alexander HORMAN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
M. Gabriel Nahas, Jr., George Ellis, Houston, for appellant.
Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., James C. Brough and Ted Nirtz, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for State.
Upon his plea of guilty to the offense of driving a motor vehicle upon a public highway while intoxicated, appellant was on June 14, 1966, found guilty and his punishment was assessed by the court at 20 days in jail and a fine of $100.00.
No judgment was entered, the court having granted appellant's application for probation, and he was placed on probation for a period of one year. (Art. 42.13 Vernon's Ann.C.C.P.)
The conditions of such probation required by Section 5 of said Art. 42.13 were imposed, one being that appellant 'commit no offense against the laws of this or any other state or the United States.'
Upon application of the state, the court caused the arrest of appellant (Sec. 6(a) of Art. 42.13, supra) and on May 16, 1967, after hearing, found that he had violated said term of his probation.
We find no merit in the contention that it was incumbent upon the state to offer as an exhibit the order made by the same judge in the same court finding appellant guilty; assessing his punishment and placing him on probation, and showing the conditions imposed.
Under such facts the judge could take judicial notice of such order and no proof thereof was required. Baker v. State, 79 Tex.Cr.R. 510, 187 S.W. 949; Armstrong v. State, 120 Tex.Cr.R. 526, 46 S.W.2d 987; 23 Tex.Jur.2d 47, Evidence--Sec. 27.
The serious question presented is whether the trial court abused his discretion in revoking probation upon the evidence adduced at the hearing on the state's motion to revoke.
The state's motion, upon which the court directed the arrest of appellant and conducted the hearing, alleged that appellant violated the condition that he 'commit no offense against the laws of this or any other state or the United States' in that he
It is apparent that this was not an allegation that appellant committed an offense against the laws but rather an allegation that he was arrested on suspicion of driving while...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bradley v. State
...502, 240 S.W. 553; McClure v. State, 100 Tex.Cr.R. 652, 273 S.W. 604; White v. State, 154 Tex.Cr.R. 498, 228 S.W.2d 183; Horman v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 423 S.W.2d 317; Hardison v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 450 S.W.2d 638.3 In Alley v. State, 154 Tex.Cr.R. 145, 225 S.W.2d 970, the trial judge took ......
-
Thorbus v. Beto
...v. Cardwell, 432 F.2d 521 (6th Cir. 1970); United States ex rel. Smith v. McMann, 417 F.2d 648 (2d Cir. 1969). 11 See Horman v. State, 423 S.W.2d 317 (Tex.Cr.App.1968); Armstrong v. State, 120 Tex.Cr.R. 526, 46 S.W.2d 987 (1932); Baker v. State, 79 Tex. 510, 187 S.W. 949 12 Rodriguez v. Uni......
-
Stephenson v. State
...law is inaccurate. It is true that a trial court may take judicial notice of its own records in previous proceedings. Horman v. State, 423 S.W.2d 317 (Tex.Cr.App.1968); Armstrong v. State, 120 Tex.Cr.R. 526, 46 S.W.2d 987 (1932); Baker v. State, 79 Tex.Cr.R. 510, 187 S.W. 949 (1916). Howeve......
-
Zillender v. State
...since the prior conviction and objection had been before him. Fleming v. State, 502 S.W.2d 822 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); Horman v. State, 423 S.W.2d 317 (Tex.Cr.App.1968); Armstrong v. State, 120 Tex.Cr.R. 526, 46 S.W.2d 987 (1932). The trial judge therefore had knowledge that the probationary per......