Bennett v. State, 476 S.W.2d 281 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972). · Go Syfert
Search
Bennett v. State, 476 S.W.2d 281 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
27 citation events (2 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Rudy Cortinas v. State (texapp, 2015-12-09)
Treatment trajectory · 1972 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1972 1999 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rudy Cortinas v. State (2×)
Tex. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Harber 1424 Junior Drive Dallas, Texas 75208 David Pearson 222 West Exchange, Suite 103 Fort Worth, Texas 76164 Trial Attorneys for Defendant Jack Strickland 909 Throckmorton Street Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Defense Attorney at Revocation Hearing Richard A. Henderson Richard A.Henderson, P.C. 100 Throckmorton Street, Suite 540 Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Attorney for Appellant 111 LIST OF INTERESTED PARTIES INDEX OF AUTHORITIES CASES: Bennett v. State, 476 S.W.2d 281, 282 (Tex.Crim.App. 1972) .................................4 Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493-94 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984) ...........…
cited Cited as authority (rule) William Preston Haith, II v. State
Tex. App. · 1998 · confidence medium
App. 1983); Bennett v. State, 476 S.W.2d 281, 282 (Tex. Crim.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lee v. State (2×)
Tex. App. · 1997 · confidence medium
Bennett v. State, 476 S.W.2d 281, 282 (Tex.Crim.App.1972); Wilson, 645 S.W.2d at 934 .
cited Cited "see" Sanchez v. State
Tex. App. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See, general ly, Bennett v. State, 476 S.W.2d 281 (Tex. Crim.App.1972).
discussed Cited "see" Aaron v. State (2×)
Tex. Crim. App. · 1977 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bennett v. State, 476 S.W.2d 281 (Tex.Cr.App. *282 1972), where Bennett attacked an Oklahoma judgment and this Court gave it full faith and credit in a revocation of probation proceeding.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Howard L. BENNETT, Appellant,
v.
the STATE of Texas, Appellee
44474.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Feb 16, 1972.
476 S.W.2d 281
1972 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 2106
Kenneth W. Gentry, Amarillo, for appellant., Tom Curtis, Dist. Atty., and F. G. Shack-elford, Asst. Dist. Atty., Amarillo, and Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.
Morrison.
Cited by 30 opinions  |  Published

OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

This is an appeal from an order revoking probation.

Appellant was convicted of passing a forged instrument on March 27, 1968, in Potter County; the punishment was assessed at three (3) years, and appellant was placed on probation. One of the conditions of appellant’s probation was that he “commit no offense against the laws of this or any other state or of the United States.”

On January 4, 1971 the State filed a motion to revoke probation charging that on August 31, 1970 appellant violated his probation by “. . . unlawfully commit (ting) the offense of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor . . .,” a misdemeanor, in Beckham County, Oklahoma.

Appellant contends there isn’t sufficient evidence to support the revocation of probation and claims he was not admonished as to the consequences of his plea of guilty in the Oklahoma case. Appellant took the stand, testified that he was the person convicted in Beckham County, Oklahoma, and that he had pled guilty but insisted he was innocent of the charge and maintained that, on the advice of counsel, he changed his plea to guilty from not guilty after the State rested its case because his prime witness did not appear and because he was promised a smaller penalty if he did so.

The State introduced a duly authenticated copy of the information and judgment of conviction in the Oklahoma case.

Appellate review of a revocation of probation proceeding is limited.to a determination of whether the trial judge abused his discretion. Aguilar v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 471 S.W.2d 58; Manning v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 412 S.W.2d 656. Probation may be revoked upon a finding that the terms of probation have been violated. A trial and valid conviction for the offense, which is the basis of the revocation, is not a necessary prerequisite to revocation. Hall v. State, Tex.Cr.App. 452 S.W.2d 490; Dunn v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 520, 265 S.W.2d 589. Further, a hearing to determine revocation of probation is not in the nature of a criminal trial. Tate v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 365 S.W.2d 789. In such a proceeding the trial judge is the sole trier of the facts, the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony. He may accept or reject any part of a witness’ testimony. Hall v. State, supra; Ex parte Bruinsma, 164 Tex.Cr.R. 358, 298 S.W.2d 838; Seymore v. Beto, 5 Cir., 383 F.2d 384. In the case at bar, the judge heard the appellant’s tes[*283] timony but chose to base his findings on the Oklahoma judgment of conviction.

A judgment of conviction from a sister state in a criminal case must be accorded full faith and credit under Art. IV, Section 1, of the United States Constitution, In re Gallogly, 138 Tex.Cr.R. 115, 134 S.W.2d 666, and is, therefore, sufficient evidence upon which to base a revocation of probation. Johnson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 410 S.W.2d 785.

No abuse of discretion is shown.

The judgment is affirmed.