Strickland v. State, 49571
| Decision Date | 21 May 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 49571,49571 |
| Citation | 523 S.W.2d 250 |
| Parties | Lecoy STRICKLAND, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
D. C. Gandy (Court-appointed on appeal only), Fort Worth, for appellant.
Tim Curry, Dist. Atty., John Hill and Clint Starr, Asst. Dist. Attys., Fort Worth, Jim D. Vollers, State's Atty., David S. McAngus, Asst. State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
OPINION ON STATE'S MOTION FOR REHEARING
Our opinion on original submission is withdrawn.
This is an appeal from an order revoking probation. Appellant was convicted of felony theft and placed on two years' probation. Probation was revoked for appellant's failure to report to his probation officer as directed in his conditions of probation.
Motion to revoke was filed in November 1972 and a warrant of arrest issued the same day. An amended motion to revoke was filed, and a second warrant issued, in November 1973. The probationary period expired in December 1973. Appellant was arrested on the warrants in July 1974 and probation was revoked in August 1974.
The motion was filed and warrant issued before expiration of the probationary period. Therefore, the court had jurisdiction to hear the motion. Coffey v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 500 S.W.2d 515; Ortega v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 414 S.W.2d 465; Ex parte Fennell, 126 Tex.Cr.R. 286, 284 S.W.2d 727. The issue raised by appellant is whether the State made a diligent effort to apprehend him and to hear and determine the claimed violation such as to authorize revocation after the probationary period had ended. Stover v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 365 S.W.2d 808. The credibility of the witnesses was for the trial judge to assess. E.g., Farmer v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 475 S.W.2d 753.
Appellant testified, among other things, that in November 1972, when the first motion to revoke was filed, he was living at 210 New York Street in Fort Worth, his address at the time of the hearing. Although he also testified that he gave that address to his probation officer, the testimony of the probation officer was that the last address appellant reported to him 1 was 3100 East Berry Street, which was reported in May 1972. The probation officer further testified that appellant's most recent address on record, the East Berry address, was the one supplied the sheriff's office when the motion to revoke was filed and the warrant issued.
In light of his failure to report his change of address to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nicklas v. State, 49683
...Bryant v. State, 496 S.W.2d 565 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Standley v. State, 517 S.W.2d 538 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); Strickland v. State, 523 S.W.2d 250 (Tex.Cr.App.1975). And this is particularly true where the court's order of arrest is followed by a diligent effort to apprehend and to hear and determ......
-
Zillender v. State
...vest a limited jurisdiction in the trial court to hear the motion after the expiration of the probationary period. 4 Strickland v. State, 523 S.W.2d 250 (Tex.Cr.App.1975); Coffey v. State, 500 S.W.2d 515 (Tex.Cr.App.1973); Ortega v. State, 414 S.W.2d 465 (Tex.Cr.App.1967); Ex Parte Fennell,......
-
Prior v. State
...before the end of the probationary period. Roberson v. State, 688 S.W.2d 657 (Tex.App.--Eastland 1985, no writ); Strickland v. State, 523 S.W.2d 250 (Tex.Crim.App.1975). Evidence at the revocation hearing was that the Appellant had never reported to his probation officer and had not obtaine......
-
Rodriguez v. State
...The State acknowledges the burden of proving due diligence when raised by a defendant. The State, relying on Strickland v. State, 523 S.W.2d 250 (Tex.Crim.App.1975), contends that any delay in service of the capias is the appellant's own fault, and he is, therefore, in no position to compla......
-
Punishment Phase
...will be defeated and an eight-month delay in serving the capias on him will be deemed as sufficiently explained. Strickland v. State, 523 S.W.2d 250 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975). PUNISHMENT PHASE 20-105 Pඎඇංඌඁආൾඇඍ Pඁൺඌൾ §20:97 §20:96.10.2 Lack of Due Diligence Found Where the probation department......
-
Table of Cases
...2003, pet. ref’d ), §19:65 Strickland v. State, 193 S.W.3d 662 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 2006, pet. ref’d ), 21:40.3 Strickland v. State, 523 S.W.2d 250 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975), §20:96.10.1 Strickland v. State, 923 S.W.2d 617 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, no pet .), §§2:43, 3:32.5 Stricklan......
-
Punishment Phase
...will be defeated and an eight-month delay in serving the capias on him will be deemed as sufficiently explained. Strickland v. State, 523 S.W.2d 250 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975). §20:96 Tൾඑൺඌ Cඋංආංඇൺඅ Lൺඐඒൾඋ’ඌ Hൺඇൽൻඈඈ 20-90 §20:96.10.2 Lack of Due Diligence Found Where the probation department w......
-
Punishment Phase
...will be defeated and an eight-month delay in serving the capias on him will be deemed as sufficiently explained. Strickland v. State, 523 S.W.2d 250 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975). §20:96.10.2 Lack of Due Diligence Found Where the probation department was aware that the defendant had moved to an ad......