Opinion · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Sanchez v. State
1980 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 1252
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- Jurisdiction
- Texas
- Date
- 1980-06-11
- Topic
- general
holding that in adult criminal cases for probation revocation, probation may be revoked for a violation of a single condition | holding that when one sufficient ground for revocation is shown, reviewing court does not need to address other contentions raised since one probation violation will support trial court’s order revoking probation | holding that when one sufficient ground for revocation is shown, reviewing court does not need to address other contentions raised since one probation violation will support trial court’s order revoking probation | holding that when one sufficient ground for revocation is shown, reviewing court does not need to address other contentions raised since one probation violation will support trial court's order revoking probation | holding that when one sufficient ground for revocation is shown, reviewing court does not need to address other contentions raised since one probation violation will support trial court's order revoking probation | holding that the violation of one condition of probation, when several violations are raised by the State and found to be true by the trial court, is sufficient to support the trial court’s order revoking probation | holding that one probation violation is sufficient to support court's revocation order | holding that one probation violation is sufficient to support court’s revocation order | holding that the violation of one condition of probation, when several violations are raised by the State and found to be true by the trial court, is sufficient to support the trial court’s order revoking probation | finding that a trial court is not required to hold a hearing prior to enacting a probation modification | finding that the single violation of failing to report was sufficient to support revocation and pretermitted consideration of other contentions | finding that the single violation of failing to report was sufficient to support revocation and pretermitted consideration of other contentions | holding in adult criminal case that probation may be revoked for violation of single condition | holding one probation violation is sufficient to support the trial court’s order revoking probation | holding proof of a single violation will support a community supervision revocation order | holding one sustained violation sufficient to revoke probation | ex parte modification did not violate due process where defendant was made aware of changes | where one ground for revocation is sufficient to support court’s order revoking probation, reviewing court need not address other contentions | terms modified concerning the probation officer to whom probationer reported and an additional requirement that he ingest antabuse | where one ground for revocation is sufficient to support court's order revoking probation, reviewing court need not address other contentions | there is no abuse of discretion in revocation of community supervision if a single ground is supported by a preponderance of the evidence and is otherwise valid | there is no abuse of discretion in revocation of community supervision if a single ground is supported by a preponderance of the evidence and is otherwise valid | “There is one sufficient ground for revocation, the failure to report, and we do not need to address the other contentions raised since the one probation violation will support the court’s order to revoke probation.” | single probation violation will support revocation of probation | single probation violation will support revocation of probation | one violation sufficient to adjudicate guilt | adding condition that defendant ingest anta-buse
Citator
- Cited by
- 164 opinions
OPINION
DALLY, Judge.This is an appeal from an order revoking probation.
On January 23, 1976, the appellant pled guilty to the offense of burglary of a building. Punishment was assessed at imprisonment for five years. The imposition of the sentence was suspended and the appellant was placed on probation.
The terms of appellant’s probation were modified four times but on June 29, 1979, the trial court conducted a hearing on the State’s Motion to Revoke Probation. The court revoked probation and sentence was imposed.
The appellant contends that the trial court failed upon request to file written findings of fact and conclusions of law. The appellant also argues that the modifications of his probation violated due process. The appellant asserts that the trial court erred in using the same grounds for revoking probation as were used for modifying his probation.
The appellant’s contention that the trial court failed to file written findings of facts and conclusions of law is without merit since the trial court did in fact file its findings of fact prior to the record being transmitted to this Court. There was no error. Barrow v. State, 505 S.W.2d 808 (Tex.Cr.App.1974).
The appellant next argues that the modifications of the terms of his probation violated due process of law because the order to modify was conducted without a hearing. The original terms of probation ordered the appellant to report to a specific probation officer on the first and tenth of each month. Through two orders of modification the appellant was ordered to report to a different named probation officer each Monday and Friday and to orally ingest antabuse. The trial court found that the appellant failed to report five consecutive times.
We cannot agree that such modifications without a hearing violate due process of law. The terms imposed upon the appellant could have been included in the original probation conditions. Art. 42.12, Sec. 6, V.A.C.C.P. The terms were not unreasonable. Nor does the appellant contend that he was not given notice of the changes in the terms of his probation. Appellant was not entitled to a hearing concerning the modification of his probation for the trial court “may, at any time, during the period of probation alter or modify the conditions.” Art. 42.12, Sec. 6, V.A.C.C.P.
The appellant also contends that it was error for the trial court to use the same probation violation to revoke probation as had been used to modify the probation previously. However, the record fails to reveal *871 that the same grounds were used to both modify and revoke the probation. After the terms of probation were modified the appellant failed to report to his probation officer as required by the modified terms of probation.
Appellant also raises other grounds of error but they concern other probation violations used as grounds for revocation. There is one sufficient ground for revocation, the failure to report, and we do not need to address the other contentions raised since the one probation violation will support the court’s’ order to revoke probation. Jones v. State, 571 S.W.2d 191 (Tex.Cr.App.1978). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking probation.
The judgment is affirmed.