Judge Michael McC _ nick - Voice For The Defense Online

twenty days of the request or release ofthe defendant." Aguilar v. State, 621S.W.2d 781, 786 (Tex. Crim.App.1981) and Wilson v. State, 645 S.W.2d932,933 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1983, nopet.).1. Habeas Corpus is the properremedy if thetrial court fails to complywith the requirements of Section8(a). Ex parte Trillo, 540 S.W.2d728, 731 (Tex.Crim.App. 1976),overruled on other grounds in,Aguilar v. Sfate, 621 S.W.2d 781,785 (Tex.Crim.App. 1981).NOTE: Thedefendantmaydot awaitthe revocation of his probation andthen present a violation of the twenty-dayrequirement as a pund oferr& on appeal - such relief mustbe obtained prior to the defendant'sprobation revocation. Aguilar, 621S.W.2d at 786.see also, Robens v.State, 627 S.W.2d 183 (Tex.Crim.App. 1982).VI. Role of the Trial Judge inRevocation of Probation ProceedingsA. JurisdictionThe court which granted probation isthe court which has the jurisdiction torevoke position.B. Role of the Judge at HearingSince theprobationeris not entitled to ajury, the trial judge is the sole trier of Edctsin a revocation proceeding; the court alonedetermines the credib'llity of the witnessesand the weight to be given to their testimony.Thejudgemay accept orrejectanypart of the evidence offered. Willey v.State, 501 S.W.2d84,86 (Tex.Crim.App.1973); and Vancev. Smte,478S.W.Zd535,536 (Tex.Crim.App. 1972).C. Judicial Notice1. The trial judge in a revocationproceeding may take judicial notice of theindictment,thejudgment,theorderplacingthe defendant on probation, theofticer'smotiontorevokc.thewmnt.and317,318 (Tex. Crim.App. 1972): see also,Baumert v. State, 709 S.W.2d 212, 213-(Tex. Crim.App. 1986); and Wilson v.Srate, 677 S.W.2d 518, 523(Tex.Crim.App. 1984).Morwver,Clelandv. State, 572 S.W.2d 673 (Tex.Crim.App.1978) held that testimony on which thecourt took judicial notice is not generallyincluded in the record on appeal.2. Where the alleged violation is a newoffense and the ombationex has bee^ triedon the new offinse, the judge may takejudicial notice of thosefacts shown at trialif he presided over the trial. Barnenfez v.State, 500 S.W.2d 474, 475 (Tex.Crim.App. 1973), questioned in, Mc-Cown v. State. 739 S.W.2d 655 655(TexApp. - Beaumont 1987, no pet.)(Questioned the continued validity Of therule annonnced in Bunientez in light ofrule 201@) of the Rules of CriminalEvidence); and Stephenson v. Stare, 500S.W.2d 855, 857 (Tex.Crim.App. 1973);seealso, Bradleyv. State, 564 S.W.2d727,729 (Tex.Crim.App. 19781.D. If probation is revoked, the courtmay proceedwiththeaeasiftherehadheen no grant of probation. Tex. CodeCrim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12 see. 8 (VernonSupp. 1988).Redoction of Sentences: Article 42.12section 8(a) provides that where probationisrevokedandthecourtdeterminesthat thebest interests of society and of theprobationerwillbeserved by ashortertermof imprisonment, the court may reduce theterm of im~risonment originally assessedto any term not less than the minimumprescribed for the offense of whichprobationer was convicted. Tex. CodeCrim. Proc. Ann. (Vernon Supp. 1988).E. In revoking probation, the trialcourt should make fSndings of fact andeonelusions of law and have themset outin the order; the order should then beentered into theminutes.NOTE: A written orderrevoking probationwill conbol over an oral pronouncementof thc hial iuds. Euhonks v. Slure.theshowcausenotice.~o~oofofsnchex- 599 S.W.2d 815, 817 (Tex.Crim.App.hibits is required. Hollowy v. State, 666 1980); Agullar v. State, 542 S.W.2d 871,S.W.2d 104, 108 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984); 874(Tex.Crim.App. 1976);Ablonv. State,Flenling v. State, 502 S.W.2d 822, 823 537 S.W.2d 267, 269 (Tex.Crim.App.(Tex.CrimApp. 1973); Mason v. State, 1976); and Jackson v. State, 720 S.W.Zd495 S.W.2d 248, 250 (Tex.Crim.App. 153 (Tex.App.- Houston @4th Dit.]1973); and Can~wn v. State, 479 S.W.2d 1986, pet. ref'd).28 VOICE for fk Defense 1 January 1989In Clapper v. State, 562 S.W.2d 250,25 1 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978), the writtenorder revoking probation contained thefinding: "[OIn the 5th day of May, A.D.,1976 [appellant did] commit theoffenseofauto theft. . . ." There was no request formore specific findings. The Court ofCriminal Appeals held that, absent such arequest, thefailureofthetrialcourttomakespecific findii in the order did not wnstitntereveasibleemr.Seealso, Bradley v.State, 608 S.W.2d 652, 655(Tex.Crim.App. 1980); and Mason v.State, 495 S.W.2d 248, 250 (Tex.Crim.App. 1973).VII. Recurring ErrorsA. Rmdamental Defects in the PrimaryConviction1. Defects in Indictmenta. Gened RuleAn indictment which fails to allege anoffense was committed by the accusedis insufficientto support a conviction. Aconviction which is based on an indictmentwhich fails to state an offenseagainst thelaw is void. American PlantFood Corp. v. State, 508 S.W.2d 598,603 (Tex.Crim.App. 1974).b. Examples1. Pickett v. State, 542 S.W.2d 868,869(Tex.Crim.App. 1976). Probationgranted after a conviction for assaultwith intent to rob, under the formerpenal code, was not a valid convictionwhere the indictment on which it wasbased failed to "aver ownership of theproperty taken."2. Tinzms v. State, 542 S.W.2d 424,426(Tex.Crim.App. 1976). Conviction andprobation werebaseduponafundamentallydefectiveindictment whenit failedto allege "that the offense was commitIedwithout the effective consent ofthe owner."3. Standley v. State, 517 S.W.2d 538,541 (Tex.Crim.App. 1975). Probationgranted after a conviction for conversionby hailee was based upon a fundamentallydefective indictment whichfailed to allegethe"va1ue ofthe property."a. Without such value alleged, thereis no way to determine if the DistrictCourt had jurisdiction andno way toproperly determine punishment.b. Indictment is void ab initio (fails