Wilson v. State, 25332
| Citation | 156 Tex.Crim. 228,240 S.W.2d 774 |
| Decision Date | 13 June 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 25332,25332 |
| Parties | WILSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas |
No attorney on appeal for appellant.
George P. Blackburn, State's Atty., of Austin, for the State.
DAVIDSON, Commissioner.
Upon his plea of guilty before the court, appellant was, on September 27, 1950, convicted in the District Court of Travis County for automobile theft, with punishment assessed at five years in the penitentiary.
Imposition of sentence was by the trial court suspended, and appellant was placed upon probation for a period of five years, under the authority of the Adult Probation and Parole Law, appearing as Art. 781b, Vernon's C.C.P.
The probation was among other things, contingent upon appellant's not committing any offense against the laws of this state.
Thereafter, on January 17, 1951, the District Attorney of Travis County filed in said court a motion seeking to have the probation revoked because of a violation of the above mentioned contingency--in that appellant had unlawfully carried a pistol upon his person.
The motion for revocation came on to be heard on February 6, 1951, when the trial court revoked the probation and imposition of sentence, upon a finding that appellant had violated the probation in the particular mentioned, and thereupon proceeded to pass sentence upon appellant for a term of two years from January 25, 1951.
To this action of the court appellant excepted and gave notice of appeal to this court.
The right to appeal from the conviction, as well as the revocation of probation, is expressly allowed by Sec. 5 of Art. 781b, Vernon's C.C.P. See Baker v. State, 151 Tex.Cr.R. 454, 209 S.W.2d 769.
Appellant contends (a) that he was entitled to a jury trial upon the hearing of the motion to revoke the probation, and that the trial court erred in refusing to accord him such a trial, and (b) that the statute is invalid in authorizing a revocation of probation at a hearing without a trial by jury.
The Adult Probation and Parole Law, Art. 781b, Vernon's C.C.P., passed by virtue of constitutional authority, Art. 4, Sec. 11A, Vernon's Ann.St.Const., authorizes the courts therein mentioned to extend clemency to convicts by way of probation, under such circumstances and conditions as the court shall determine.
No authority exists in the convict to require such clemency, for that is a matter exclusively within the discretion of the court. Baker v. State, supra.
When a court extends clemency under the statute, the relationship existing is, in a way, contractual--that is, the court agrees with the convict that clemency by way of probation will be extended if he will keep and perform certain requirements and conditions, the violation of which will authorize the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crawford v. State
...Certainly this Court has long held that a proceeding to revoke probation is not a trial in the constitutional sense. Wilson v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 228, 240 S.W.2d 774; Ex parte Gomez, Tex.Cr.App., 241 S.W.2d 153; Jones v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 24, 261 S.W.2d 317; Ex parte Bruinsma, 164 Tex.......
-
Kelly v. State
...supra note 1; Perry v. State, 459 S.W.2d 865 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); Hulsey v. State, 447 S.W.2d 165 (Tex.Cr.App.1969).3 Wilson v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 228, 240 S.W.2d 774 (1951); Leija v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 300, 320 S.W.2d 3 (1958); Hulsey v. State, supra note 2; and cases there cited.4 Dougl......
-
Stephenson v. State
...number of occasions that proceedings to revoke probation are not criminal trials in the constitutional sense, Wilson v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 228, 240 S.W.2d 774 (Tex.Cr.App.1951); Leija v. State, 167 Tex.Cr.R. 300, 320 S.W.2d 3 (Tex.Cr.App.1958); Hulsey v. State, 447 S.W.2d 165 (Tex.Cr.App.......
-
Davenport v. State
...to be a trial, "as that term is used and contemplated by the Constitution in reference to criminal cases . . .," Wilson v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 228, 240 S.W.2d 774, 776; Campbell v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 456 S.W.2d 918; a proceeding which is not considered to be a criminal prosecution, Hill v......