Teel v. State
| Decision Date | 23 October 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 41687,41687 |
| Citation | 432 S.W.2d 911 |
| Parties | Frank Douglas TEEL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Criminal Appeals |
No attorney of record on appeal.
Leon B. Douglas, State's Atty., Austin, for the State.
This is an appeal from an order revoking probation.
We find that we are faced with the same question with which we were confronted in Anderson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 421 S.W.2d 667, and this appeal must be dismissed for want of a sentence imposed after revocation of probation. See Article 42.04, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P.
The record reflects that on November 3, 1967, appellant was convicted of burglary upon his plea of guilty and punishment was assessed at three years. Judgment was entered accordingly. On that same date sentence was imposed, but the execution of the same was suspended and the appellant placed on probation subject to certain terms and conditions.
Following a hearing on the State's motion for revocation, appellant's probation was revoked on January 5, 1968, and the sentence previously imposed was ordered carried out.
Under former Article 781d, Sections 1 and 3, V.A.C.C.P., the trial court in granting adult probation was authorized to suspend either the imposition or the execution of the sentence. Cf. Article IV, Section 11A, Texas Constitution, Vernon's Ann.St.
Under the 1965 Code of Criminal Procedure the trial court, however, is limited to the use of the suspension of the imposition of the sentence method of granting probation. See Article 42.12, Sections 1 and 3, V.A.C.C.P., 1965. Under such procedure sentence is never imposed except following revocation of probation. A sentence imposed earlier where it is the clear intent of the court to grant probation is a nullity. Anderson v. State, supra; Cf. Ex parte McCarter, Tex.Cr.App., 415 S.W.2d 409.
The sentence in the case at bar being unauthorized at the time it was imposed, the court's order following revocation that the previously imposed sentence be carried out is of no effect.
No sentence appearing in the record following revocation of probation, the appeal is premature and is dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Petty v. State
...years imprisonment as punishment but suspended imposition of this sentence by placing appellant on probation. See Teel v. State, 432 S.W.2d 911, 912 (Tex.Crim.App.1968); Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 42.12, § 1 (Vernon Supp.1985). The State's motion to revoke alleged several violations. That......
-
Gates v. State
...Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 42.12, § 2(b) (Vernon Supp.1985); see also Gordon v. State, 575 S.W.2d 529, 532 (Tex.Crim.App.1978); Teel, 432 S.W.2d at 912. While the Supreme Court in Pearce discussed the due process violation in terms of imposing increased punishment, the Court of Criminal A......
-
Gill v. Estelle
...will only be able to suspend imposition of the sentence when probation is granted. Tex.Code Crim.Pro. art. 42.12(3). See Teel v. State, 432 S.W.2d 911 (Tex.Cr.App.1968); Ex parte Williams, supra. The courts' option for an alternative method has now been The State of Texas has supplied this ......
-
Gordon v. State, s. 57414
...probation is revoked, if at all, because the imposition of sentence is suspended. Article 42.12, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P.; Teel v. State, 432 S.W.2d 911 (Tex.Cr.App.1968). Therefore, the trial judge in the present case could not have placed the cumulation order into the sentence until the appell......