Judge Michael McC _ nick - Voice For The Defense Online

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The Probation Revocation HearingBy Judge Rch~rd Mays1. Re resenting a Defendant in aPr d: atlon Revocation HearingA. Pretrial Preparation1. Consult with the probation departmentand obtain a copy of or review thepresentencereport.2.L~theopinionofthepmbationofficerwho has supervised the defendant.3. Obtaincharacter witnesses.4. The employer's testimony may hevery helpful.5. Family witnesses - to show familyinterest inthedefendant, andwho willstickby the defendant if the defendant is given -probation.6. Make sure there is adequate time forpenting the evidence - schedule theheariag properly so that it is not a rush job.B. Know the Judge1. Find out about the court and its historyin assessing punishment.2. Personalfeelingsregardingbeingthededsion-maker,3. Ability to overeom pressure.4. Feelings toward particula kinds ofcrimes and criminals.C. Conduct the Hearing1. Brevity where possible.2. Fully develop thestrongestpositions,i.e. employment, age, lackof criminalrec-01x3, marital responsibilities.3. Present the mitigating aspects of theoffense.4. Show the remorsefulness of the defendantand present it appropriately (trialcounsel may inform court if the defendantis a bad witness).5. Show society wouldbehmedby incarceratingthe defendant, i.e. family condition.6. Eliminate the probability of fohmcriminality on the part of the defendant.7. Show the defendant can abide by theprobation conditions.8. Balance society's and thedefendantsneeds (not rights) in argument.a. The need to protect society £ram adangerous defendant.b. Probation would help the defendant,Judge Richard Mays was born andraised in DaNas, He obtained his undargraduateandlawdegreesfromtheUniwrsifyof Texas.Judge Mays was inprivatepractice withhis fatherfrom 1965-1967. He mw an assistantDistrict Attorney in the DallasCounty District Attorneys Ofice From1967-1973, during which time he ws theChief Prosecutor of Criminal DistrictCourt Numbers 2 & 3, and was the ChiefProsecutor in charge of the Dalh CountyGrand Jury. Judge Mays has been thepresiding judge of the 204th Judicial DistrictCourt in Dallas from 1973 to thepresentHe has been a speaker at EDLA seminnrsandafrequent contributor of articlesto the Criminal Defense PracticeM&dals Manual.his family, and aid the connnnnity.c. Defendant was exceptional probationer,not just aregular probationer.d. Defendant will get GILD., employment,etc.e. Give the court a reason not ta justpunish the defendant.Il. FundamentalsA. Arevocation of probation hearingis not a criminal trial. Jones v. State, 728S.W.2d801 (Tex.Crim.App. 1987);Munozv. State, 485 S.W.2d 782 (Tex.Crim.App.1972); Hulsey v. State, 447 S.W.2d 165(Tex.Crim.App. 1969); and Tate v. Sfate,365 S.W.2d 789 (Tex.Crim.App. 1963).1. Note -the Caurt of Criminal Agpeals has said: "A probation revowtionhearing is not an adversarial proceeding, acivilaction, ora Criminalprosecution:'butis administrative in nature and is a meansofprotecting society and rehabilitating offenders.Hill v. State, 480S.W.2d200,202(Tex.Crim.App. 1972) (and cases citedtherein), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1078(1972).2. Probationer is not entitled to a jurytrial. Munoz,485 S.W.2d at783 (and casescited therein); see aka, Wickware v. State,486 S.W.2d 801, 803 [Tex.Crim.App.1972). It has beenconsistently held that theprovisions of article42.12 section 8 of theCode of Criminal Procedure precludes ajury trial at a revocation h&g. Wckwre,486 S.W.2d at 803 (and cases citedtherein).B. The allegations in a motion torevoke probation need not strictly complywith the requirements of an indicbment. LaBelle v. State, 692 S.W.2d 105(Tex.Crim.App. 1985); Denpsey v. State,496 S.W.2d 49,50 (Tex.Crim.App. 1973);and Gonvrlez v. State, 456 S.W.2d 53,55(Tex.Crim.App. 1970); see also, Wlcox v.State, 477 S.W.2d 900, 901 n.1 Vex.Crim.App. 1972).1. However, the allegations in the motionto revoke probation should fully informthe probationer so that he and hiscounsel will know what he will he calledupon to defend against. Dempsey, 496S.W.2d at 52; and Wilcar, 477 S.W.2d at901 n.1.2. More~ver, due process requires thatthe probationer be given adequate andprior notice so as to enable him to preparehis defense. La Belle v. State, 720 S.W.2d101,104 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986) (andcasescited therein); Kuenstler v. State, 486S.W.2d 367 @x.Ciim,App. 1972); andCampbell v. Stafe, 456 S.W.2d 91824 VOICEfor the Defense I January 1989
~ ~~~~ ~(Tex.Crim.App. 1970); see also, Youngerv. Stare, 685 S.W.2d 657, 660 (Tex.Crim.App. 1985).C. The standard of proof in a probationrevocation hearing is not as stringentas the standard of proof in acriminal prosecution; i.e., proof need notbe beyond areasonable doubt. Russell v.State, 551 S.W.2d 710, 714 (Tex.Crim.App. 1973, cert denied, 434 US.954 (1977); Keel v. State, 544S.W.2d 151,152 (Tex.Crim.App. 1976); Reed v. State,533 S.W.2d 35,37 (Tex.Crim.App. 1976);Scamardo v. State, 517 S.W.2d 293, 297(Tex.Crim.App. 1974); and Kelly v. State,483 S.W.2d 467 (Tex.Crim.App. 1972);seealso, Guillory v. State,487S.W.2d327,330 (Tex.Crim.App. 1972); and Durar~ v.State, 485 S.W.2d 923, 924 n.1(Tex.Crim.App. 1972).1. The standard of proof that the statemust meet in proving offenses upon whichthe State relies in a probation revocationhearing is by a preponderance of theevidence. Gomezv. State, 685 S.W.2d 333(Tex.Crim.App. 1985); Olrdona v. State,665 S.W.2d 492 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984);Jackson v. State, 645 S.W.2d 303(Tex.Crim.App. 1983); Shaw v. State, 622S.W.2d 862, 863 (Tex.Crim.App. 1981);and Scan~ardo, 517 S.W.2d at 298.2. NOTE: Chief Justice Onion hasremained consistently convinced that theproper burden of proof in a revocation ofprobation proceeding is "beyond a reasonabledoubt." Keel, 544 S.W.2d at 152n.1; Scanlardo, 517 S.W.2d at 299 (OnionI., dissenting); Sizenwre v. State, 496S.W.2d 80, 83 (Tex.Crim.App. 1973)(Onion, I., dissenting); and Kelly, 483S.W.2d at 480 (Onion, J., dissenting).D. Sufficiency of the Evidence; InGeneral1. The uncorroborated testimony of anaccomplice may be sufficient to support arevocation of probation. Howery v. State,528 S.W.2d 230, 233 (Tex.Crim.App.1975); Regalado v. State ,494 S.W. 2d 185(Tex.Crim.App. 1973); Mann v. State, 490S.W.2d 545,546 (Tex.Crim.App. 1973);Richardson v. State, 487 S.W.2d 719,721(Tex.Crim.App. 1972), cert. denied, 411US. 972 (1972); Kelly, 483 S.W.2d at472;Moreno v. State, 476 S.W.2d 684, 685(Tex.Crim.App. 1972); Barnes v. State,467 S.W.2d 437, 440 (Tex.Crim.App.1971); and Gonmlez v. State, 456 S.W.2d53 (Iex.Crim.App. 1970).2. A voluntary confession to the subsequentoffense, even though uncorroborated,constitotes sufficient evidencefor a court to revoke probation. Bush v.State, 506 S.W.2d 603, 605 (Tex.Crim.App. 1974); Hicks v. State, 476S.W.2d 670, 671 (Tex.Crim.App. 1972);and DeLeon v. State, 466 S.W.2d 573(Tex.Crim.App. 1971), questioned onother grounds in Guerra v. State, 518S.W.Zd815,817(Tex.Crirn.App. 1975).NOTE: When a confession is reliedupon by the State it is error for the court todeny probationerthe privilegeof testifyingsolely on the issue of voluotariness of theconfession, without subjecting himself tounlimited cross-examination by the prosecutionon other issues. Richardson v.State, 622 S.W.2d 852, 858 (Tex.Crim.App. 1981); and Masters v. State,545 S.W.2d 180 ('Iex.Crim.App. 1977).3. Where the cammission of the subsequentoffense is alleged and proved, nofinal conviction is necessary for therevocation of probation. Bradrhaw v.State, 518 S.W.2d 548, 549 (Tex.Crim.App. 1975); Manirtez v. State, 493S.W.2d 954, 955 (Tex.Crim.App. 1973);Beck v. State, 492 S.W.2d 536, 537(Tex.Crim.App. 1973); Guillory v. State,487 S.W.2d 327, 330 (Tex.Crim.App.1972); Oliver v. State, 482 S.W.2d 874,875 (Tex.Crim.App. 1972); Carr v. State,476 S.W.2d 329 (Tex.Crim.App. 1972);Day v. State, 474 S.W.2d 246 (Tex.Crim.App. 1971); and Mason v. State, 473S.W.2d 15 (Tex.Crim.App. 1971).E. Remember:A probationer is on probation until themoment of revmation. Nichols v. State,501 S.W.2d 333, 335 (Tex.Crim.App.1973); Wilson v. State, 471 S.W.2d 416(Tex.Crim.App. 1971), questioned onother grounds in, Guerra v. State, 518S.W.2d 815 (Tex.Crim.App. 1975); andDeLeon v. State, 466 S.W.2d 573, 576(Tex.Crim.App. 1971), questioned onother grounds in, Guerra v. State, 518S.W.2d 815 (Tex.Crim.App. 1975).Ill. Requirementsfor Revocationof ProbationA. Once granted, probation shouldnot be arbitrarily withdrawn by thecourt; rather, probation can be withdrawnonly by lhe process of revocationof .~- orubatiun. Wezrer v. Stnre. 542 S.W.2d403, 405 (Tex.Crim.App. '1976); andBarnes v. State, 467 S.W.2d 437, 441(Tex.Crim.App. 1971).B. A court, once having grantedprobation, must find that the probationerhas violated a condition ofprobation in order to revoke, af€er ahearing in accordance with article 42.12section 8 of the Code of CriminalProcedure. Wester, 542 S.W.2d at405-06,Jackson v. State, 464 S.W.2d 153(Tex.Crim.App. 1971); Campbell v. State,456 S.W.2d 918, 922 (Tex.Crim.App.1970); and Wozencraft v. State. 388S.W.2d 426 (Tex.Crim.App. 1965); seealso, United States v. Taylor, 449 F.2d 117(9th cir. 1971); DeGay v. State, 741S.W.2d 445, 449 (Tex.Crim.App. 1987);Rogers v. State, 640 S.W.2d 248, 252,Tex.Crim.App. 1982); and Scanmdo v.State, 517 S.W.2d 293, 297 (Tex.Crim.App. 1974).The burden of proof is on the State toshowaviolationoftheconditions ofprobation.Shaw v. State, 622 S.W.2d 862, 863(Tex.Crim.App. 1981); Battle v. State, 571S.W.2d 20, 22 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978);Perry v. State, 459 S.W.2d 865, 867(Tex.Crim.App. 1970); Campbell v. State,456 S.W.2d at 918; andZane v. State, 420S.W.2d 953, 954 (Tex.Crim.App. 1967);cj, Jones v. State, 560 S.W.2d 673, 675(Tex.Crim.App. 1978) (The state's burdenin such cases is by a preponderance of theevidence).Where the basis of a revocation ofprobation is a violation of a penal law, i.e.,an alleged violation of the condition thatthe probationer not violate the law, the allegationscontainedin themotion torevokemust give fair notice and should allege aviolation of the law, hut need not he asprecise as are the allegations for an indictment.Crawfodv. State, 624 S.W.2d 906,908 (Tex.Crim.App. 1981); Chacan v.State, 558 S.W.2d 874, 876 (Tex.Crim.App. 1977); Acton v. State, 530S.W.2d 568, 570 (Tex.Crim.App. 1975);Diaz v. State, 516 S.W.2d 154, 156(Tex.Crim.App. 1974); Fowler v. State,509 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex.Crim.App.1974); Rhodes v. State, 491 S.W.2d 895,896 (Tex.Crim.App. 1973); Vance v. State,485 S.W.2d 580, 581 (Tex. Crim.App.January 1989 1 VOICE for the Defense 25
Page 1 and 2: Judge Michael McC _nick*WELDON HOLC
Page 3 and 4: President's ColumnLas Vegas! Please
Page 5 and 6: Talking With.. .by Bill WhiteOn Jan
Page 7 and 8: saying what he says.BW: If gives yo
Page 9 and 10: are five judges that want to try so
Page 11 and 12: themsinceI'vebeenhereissoflofaliais
Page 13 and 14: son v. State, 661 S.W.2d 708 (Tex.C
Page 15 and 16: ANNOUNCING THE 1989 EDITIONS OF THE
Page 17 and 18: granted.Judge Onion further argued
Page 19 and 20: Warrantless Searches and Seizuresby
Page 21 and 22: ARlZONA V. YOUNGBLOOD,No. 86-1904,
Page 23 and 24: DOUBLE JEOPARDY - ENHANCEMENT - RET
Page 25 and 26: FACTS: Police cavtain testified at
Page 27 and 28: Opinion by Judge Teague; November 2
Page 29 and 30: that the defendant appeared to be c
Page 31: they were stolen, read and recorded
Page 35 and 36: S.W.2d 387, 388 (Tex.Crim.App. 1977
Page 37 and 38: to state an offense) and would besu
Page 39 and 40: ject isallowed to wtfor a short per
Page 41 and 42: A Comparison of the Public Defender
Page 43 and 44: List of Granted Petitions for Discr
Page 45 and 46: Supreme Court interprets the corres
Page 47: TCDLEl Building FundThe Texas Crimi

Judge Michael McC _ nick - Voice For The Defense Online

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?