Ice v. State, 2-94-539-CR
| Decision Date | 18 January 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 2-94-539-CR,2-94-539-CR |
| Citation | 914 S.W.2d 694 |
| Parties | Maurice Thomas ICE, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, State. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
R. Kelton Conner, Granbury, for appellant.
Richard L. Hattox, District Attorney, Granbury, for appellee.
Before CAYCE, C.J., and DAUPHINOT and JOHN HILL (Assigned), JJ.
Maurice Thomas Ice, Appellant, was convicted of Driving While Intoxicated and the jury assessed his punishment at five years' confinement and a fine of $2,000.00. The trial court entered judgment convicting Ice, but the court suspended the incarceration and placed Ice on community supervision for a period of ten years. In a single point of error, Ice complains that this sentence was void because the trial court did not make the necessary affirmative findings to allow the court to suspend imposition of the incarceration portion of Ice's sentence. We affirm.
Although Ice phrases his point of error as a void sentence because the trial court erred in placing Ice on community supervision, Ice is actually complaining that he was ordered to the Substance Abuse Felony Program (SAFP). Ice is correct that article 42.12, section 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that if a judge requires SAFP as a condition of community supervision, the judge must make an affirmative finding that: 1) drug or alcohol abuse significantly contributed to the commission of the crime or violation of community supervision; and 2) the defendant is a suitable candidate for treatment as determined by the suitability criteria established by the Texas Board of Criminal Justice under section 493.009(b) of the Government Code. 1
The rule is well established that when a trial judge fails to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is presumed that the court made the necessary findings to support the decision of the trial court. 2 The situation before us is analogous to a determination by a trial judge to grant or deny a motion to suppress evidence. It is not the job of the appellate court to engage in our own factual review, but we must determine whether the trial court's finding, in this case the granting of community supervision in the SAFP, is supported by the record. 3 If findings of fact are not filed, we presume that the trial court made the findings necessary to support its ruling, so long as those implied findings are supported by the record. 4
The reviewing court must review the entire record to determine whether there are any facts that lend support for any theory upon which the trial court's decision can be sustained. If the implied or actual finding is supported by the record, it must be sustained. 5
For driving while intoxicated to rise to the level of a felony, a defendant must necessarily have a history of drug or alcohol abuse because the defendant must have at least two previous convictions for DWI. The record clearly supports the finding that drug or alcohol abuse significantly contributed to the commission of the crime. In order for a trial court to place a defendant on community supervision, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Simmang
...implied findings are supported by the record. Jones v. State, 926 S.W.2d 386, 388 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1996, pet. ref'd); Ice v. State, 914 S.W.2d 694, 695-96 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1996, no pet.); see also DuBose, 915 S.W.2d at 497, 497 n. 5. The appellate court will normally address only ......
-
Selby v. State
...of fact and conclusions of law, it is presumed that the trial court made the necessary findings to support its decision. Ice v. State , 914 S.W.2d 694, 695 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1996, no writ.). Because the order the trial judge signed denying Selby's motion for new trial does not state tha......
-
Ex parte Barnes
...findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is presumed that the court made the necessary findings to support its decision. See Ice v. State, 914 S.W.2d 694, 695 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1996, no pet.).6 The factors the United States Supreme Court has delineated as useful to determine if a def......
-
Reyna v. State
...as an accomplice was a matter of fact, we must presume that the trial court found him not to have been an accomplice. See Ice v. State, 914 S.W.2d 694, 695-96 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 1996, no pet.). Accordingly, Cecilio's testimony did not require corroboration to support appellant's convict......