Steed v. State, 44086

• Decision Date: 28 July 1971
• Docket Number: No. 44086,44086
• Citation: 467 S.W.2d 460
• Parties: Deanna Sharon STEED, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
• Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals

Page 460

467 S.W.2d 460

Deanna Sharon STEED, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 44086.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

July 28, 1971.

George R. Milner, Dallas, for appellant.

Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., John B. Tolle, Harry J. Schilz, Jr., W. T. Westmoreland, Jr., Edgar A. Mason, Robert T. Baskett and James S. Moss, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, and Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

DOUGLAS, Judge.

This is an appeal from an order revoking probation.

The record reflects that on April 28, 1967, the appellant was found guilty in a trial before the court of the felony offense of possession of marihuana. The punishment was assessed at ten years. The imposition of the sentence was suspended and the appellant placed on probation for ten years subject to certain conditions of probation.

Among the conditions of probation were the following:

'(c) Avoid persons or places of disreputable or harmful character;

'(f) Work faithfully at suitable employment as far as possible;

'(i) Support your dependents.'

On September 19, 1969, a motion to revoke probation was filed alleging that the appellant had violated the above conditions of her probation.

After a hearing on November 6, 1969, the trial court revoked probation, the order stating in part:

'(T)he Court is of the opinion that the Defendant Deanna Sharon Steed, violated the terms and conditions of his (sic) probation in this respect: Violation of Condition (c) to-wit: Avoid persons or places of Disreputable or harmful character; (f) Work faithfully at suitable employment as far as possible; (i) Support your dependents.'

Sentence was then pronounced and notice of appeal given.

The appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion since the evidence is insufficient to support the order of revocation.

The evidence reflects that the appellant was arrested at 1:30 a.m. on September 19, 1969, because of loud mufflers on her automobile and suspicious activity in the car late at night. She was accompanied by three males, one of whom, Bobby Clyde Baker, was shown to have a prior criminal record. The appellant denied knowledge of his record and the evidence shows only one other occasion when the appellant was in the company of Bobby Clyde Baker. Merely being twice in the presence of a person with a police record where no knowledge of that record is shown will not support revocation of probation for failure to avoid persons of disreputable or harmful character. See Jackson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 464 S.W.2d 153.

The evidence reflects that appellant's probation officer had no knowledge of any gainful employment by her since her probation began in 1967. Other evidence shows two periods when appellant was employed, one period in which appellant was hospitalized and unable to work, and other evidence of periodic illness. No evidence appears to show that appellant was able to work and failed to do so. The evidence is insufficient to support revocation of probation for failure to work faithfully at suitable employment as far as possible.

The final ground for revocation is the alleged...