Morales v. State, 52689
| Decision Date | 14 July 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 52689,52689 |
| Citation | 538 S.W.2d 629 |
| Parties | Richard MORALES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
John L. Lesly, Amarillo, for appellant.
Barry E. Blackwell, Dist. Atty., Dumas, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., and David S. McAngus, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
DAVIS, Commissioner.
Appeal is taken from an order revoking probation.
Appellant entered a plea of guilty before the court to possession more than four ounces of marihuana on September 30, 1974. Punishment was assessed at three years and a fine of $250.00. Imposition of sentence was suspended and appellant was placed on probation.
The State filed a motion to revoke appellant's probation on November 17, 1975, alleging that appellant violated condition 'number two (2)' of his probation 'when on November 2, 1975 probationer was found to have drank (sic) intoxicating beverages.'
Condition No. 2 of appellant's probated sentence provided:
'Avoid injurious or vicious habits, such as drinking intoxicating beverages, gambling, etc.'
The record reflects that after a hearing on January 20, 1976, the court entered an order revoking appellant's probation in which the court made the following finding:
'That on or about the 2nd day of November, A.D. 1975, in Moore County in the State of Texas, Richard Morales did then and there unlawfully and willfully violate Article number two (2) of his probated sentence as set out by this Court when on November 2, 1975, probationer was found to have drank (sic) intoxicating beverages.'
Appellant contends there is insufficient evidence to support the court's finding in revoking appellant's probation.
David Hawkins, an officer with the Dumas Police Department since April, 1974, testified that it was his opinion that appellant drank intoxicating beverages on November 2, 1975. On cross-examination, Hawkins testified that he 'felt like' appellant was intoxicated when he came to the jail on November 2, 1975, to see about getting a person out of jail on bond. In response to appellant's question, 'Did he stager when he walked?' Hawkins answered, 'No, sir, he was louder than usual.' On recross-examination, Hawkins answered in the affirmative to the question, 'You did not see the gentleman (appellant) drink intoxicating liquor, the only thing you have testified here today is you smelled alcohol and, too, he was louder than usual and on these two factors you base this opinion he was drunk?' The only...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bolieu v. State, 3-88-173-CR
...2 See also Campbell v. State, 456 S.W.2d 918 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Marshall v. State, 466 S.W.2d 582 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Morales v. State, 538 S.W.2d 629 (Tex.Cr.App.1976); Chacon v. State, 558 S.W.2d 874 (Tex.Cr.App.1977); Stovall v. State, 683 S.W.2d 891 (Tex.App.1985, pet. In Campbell the on......
-
Myers v. State
...Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed.). Evidence of a single act cannot constitute a habit. Garcia v. State, 571 S.W.2d 896; Morales v. State, 538 S.W.2d 629 (Tex.Crim.App.1976); Marshall v. State, 466 S.W.2d 582 In Chacon v. State, 558 S.W.2d 874 (Tex.Crim.App.1977), the court made a distinction......
-
Chacon v. State, 55378
...10, 1976. A single instance of the use of a drug cannot be characterized as a habit under the decisions of this court. Morales v. State, 538 S.W.2d 629 (Tex.Cr.App.1976); Marshall v. State, 466 S.W.2d 582 (Tex.Cr.App.1971); Campbell v. State, 456 S.W.2d 918 (Tex.Cr.App.1970). Does this call......
-
Muehr v. State, No. 04-03-00125-CR (TX 5/26/2004)
...support of his argument, he cites several cases, including Chacon v. State, 558 S.W.2d 874 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977), Morales v. State, 538 S.W.2d 629 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976), and Bolieu v. State, 779 S.W.2d 489 (Tex. App.—Austin 1989, no writ). While these cases support Muehr's contention that......