Garner v. State, 545 S.W.2d 178 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977). · Go Syfert
Search
Garner v. State, 545 S.W.2d 178 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
69 citation events (36 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Larry Darnell Eagans v. the State of Texas (texapp, 2024-02-29) · Strongest negative: Charles Tidwell v. State (texapp, 2010-06-02)
Treatment trajectory · 1977 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1977 2001 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 25 distinct citers.
discussed Cited "but see" Charles Tidwell v. State
Tex. App. · 2010 · signal: but see · confidence high
App. 1956) (holding complaint not preserved where defendant failed to question sufficiency of motion to revoke in trial court); but see Garner v. State , 545 S.W.2d 178, 179 (Tex. Crim.
discussed Cited "but see" Charles Tidwell v. State
Tex. App. · 2010 · signal: but see · confidence high
App. 1956) (holding complaint not preserved where defendant failed to question sufficiency of motion to revoke in trial court); but see Garner v. State, 545 S.W.2d 178, 179 (Tex. Crim.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Larry Darnell Eagans v. the State of Texas
Tex. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
Garner v. State, 545 S.W.2d 178, 179 (Tex. Crim.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Manuel R. Carrasco v. State
Tex. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
App. [Panel Op.] 1979); Garner v. State, 545 S.W.2d 178, 179 (Tex. Crim.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Rahman, Fatima
Tex. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Garner v. State, 545 S.W.2d 178, 179 (Tex. Crim.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Rahman, Fatima
Tex. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Garner v. State, 545 S.W.2d 178, 179 (Tex. Crim.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fatima Rahman v. State (2×)
Tex. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
Ed. 2d 656 , 93 S. Ct. 1756 (1973). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Garner v. State, 545 S.W.2d 178, 179 (Tex. Crim.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Michael Roberts v. State
Tex. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
Garner v. State, 545 S.W.2d 178, 179 (Tex.Crim.App. 1977).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Michael Roberts v. State
Tex. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
Garner v. State , 545 S.W.2d 178, 179 (Tex.Crim.App. 1977).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Herman Neal Kirkman v. State
Tex. App. · 2009 · confidence medium
The allegations in a motion to revoke community supervision do not require the same particularity as those in an indictment or information; however, "in all fairness the allegations as to violation of probation should be fully and clearly set forth in the revocation motion, so that the defendant and his counsel might be informed as to that upon which he will be called to defend." Garner v. State , 545 S.W.2d 178, 179 (Tex. Crim.
cited Cited as authority (rule) David Wayne Rosson v. State
Tex. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
App. 1986); Garner v. State , 545 S.W.2d 178, 179 (Tex. Crim.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Robert Joe Donaldson v. State
Tex. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
App. 1978) (motion alleging false 11 statement made to firearms dealer but did not specify which statement was false); Garner v. State, 545 S.W.2d 178, 179 (Tex. Crim.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Robert Joe Donaldson v. State
Tex. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
App. 1978) (motion alleging false statement made to firearms dealer but did not specify which statement was false); Garner v. State , 545 S.W.2d 178, 179 (Tex. Crim.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Betty Labelle Bushong v. State
Tex. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
App. 1986); Garner v. State , 545 S.W.2d 178, 179 (Tex. Crim.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Smith v. State
Tex. App. · 1996 · confidence medium
LaBelle, 720 S.W.2d at 104 , citing Garner v. State, 545 S.W.2d 178, 179 (Tex.Crim.App.1977).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Jade Stone v. State
Tex. App. · 1996 · confidence medium
Garner v. State , 545 S.W.2d 178, 179 (Tex. Crim.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Davila v. State
Tex. App. · 1990 · confidence medium
LaBelle v. State, 720 S.W.2d 101, 104 (Tex.Crim.App.1986); Garner v. State, 545 S.W.2d 178, 179 (Tex.Crim.App.1977); Chaires v. State, 704 S.W.2d 397, 399 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1985, no pet.).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Guerra v. State
Tex. App. · 1988 · confidence medium
LaBelle v. State, 720 S.W.2d 101, 108 (Tex.Crim.App.1986); Mitchell v. State, 608 S.W.2d 226, 228-29 (Tex.Crim.App.1980); Garner v. State, 545 S.W.2d 178, 179 (Tex.Crim.App.1977).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Labelle v. State (4×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Tex. Crim. App. · 1986 · confidence medium
Garner v. State, 545 S.W.2d 178, 179 (Tex.Cr.App. 1977), and cases cited therein.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dunavin v. State
Tex. Crim. App. · 1981 · confidence medium
To the extent that ground of error seven complains of denying the motion to quash, it is overruled. 22 . “[T]he form of information set forth in Martinez [v. State, supra] would be a proper way upon further prosecution growing out of this offense to allege such a violation...” But in the absence of a motion to quash directed to the defect, we will not gratuitously set aside an order of revocation, Gordon v. State, 575 S.W.2d 529, 531 (Tex.Cr.App.1978), particularly where, as here, the motion to quash reflects an awareness of that which appellant and his attorney were being called on to def…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gordon v. State (2×)
Tex. Crim. App. · 1979 · confidence medium
In Garner v. State, 545 S.W.2d 178, 179 (Tex.Cr.App.1977), we stated: "[W]hile the allegations in a motion to revoke probation do not require the same particularity of an indictment or information, in all fairness the allegations as to violation of probation should be fully and clearly set forth in the revocation motion, so that the defendant and his counsel might be informed as to that upon which he will be called to defend." (Citations omitted) We hold that the appellant was given fair notice that the State was going to attempt to prove that the appellant had violated condition "a" of his pr…
discussed Cited "see" Michael Kenneth Lawrence v. State
Tex. App. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Garner v. State, 545 S.W.2d 178, 179 (Tex.Crim.App. 1977) (holding that allegations in motion to revoke must fully and clearly set forth the alleged violations of the community supervision “so that the defendant and his counsel might be informed as to that upon which he will be called to defend”).
cited Cited "see" Jeffrey J. Sessions v. State
Tex. App. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See Garner v. State, 545 S.W.2d 178, 179 (Tex. Crim.
cited Cited "see" Cody Harrison Ball v. State
Tex. App. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See Garner v. State, 545 S.W.2d 178, 179 (Tex. Crim.
cited Cited "see" Cody Harrison Ball v. State
Tex. App. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See Garner v. State , 545 S.W.2d 178, 179 (Tex. Crim.
Stephen Don GARNER, Appellant,
v.
the STATE of Texas, Appellee
53577.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jan 12, 1977.
545 S.W.2d 178
Victor R. Blaine, Houston, for appellant., Carol S. Vance, Dist. Atty., Phyllis M. Bell and Hogan Stripling, Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty. and David S. McAngus, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.
Green, Douglas, Odom.
Cited by 46 opinions  |  Published

OPINION

GREEN, Commissioner.

This appeal is from an order revoking probation. On October 4, 1971, appellant was convicted of burglary with intent to commit theft. Punishment was assessed at four years, probated. Condition (a) of the order of probation was that he commit no offense against the laws of this or any other State or of the United States.

On March 27, 1975 the State filed a motion to revoke probation. An amended motion was filed August 29, 1975, which added to the violations previously alleged the following allegation:

“It is further alleged that on or about December 16, 1974, the defendant committed the offense of theft in Harris County, Texas. He stands indicted with this offense in the 174th Criminal District Court in Cause No. 223,979.”

On October 29, 1975, appellant by his counsel filed the following exception to the amended motion:

[*179] “Defendant excepts to such motion wherein it alleges that the defendant committed the offense of theft for the reason it does not apprise the defendant of sufficient facts to enable him to prepare a defense thereto.”

The record reflects that the cause came for hearing on the motion to revoke probation on October 29, 1975, and the State and defendant “announced ready for the hearing before the court; and all preliminary matters having been disposed of, the following proceedings were had, to-wit . . ”

The State then read the motion to appellant, and the following proceedings were had:

“Sir, to this application, the amended motion to revoke probation, how do you plead, true or not true?
“THE DEFENDANT: Not true.
“MR. BLAINE (attorney for defendant): The defendant files his exception to this, particularly that portion where he committed the offense of theft. It is just a blank statement and doesn’t apprise us of the allegations in order to prepare any defense.
“THE COURT: That is overruled.
“MR. BLAINE: He pleads not true.”

Evidence was then introduced, after which the court found that:

. . the defendant did on or about the 16th day of December, 1974, commit the offense of theft in Harris County, Texas, as alleged in the indictment for that offense that was filed in the 174th Criminal District Court of Harris County, Texas, in Cause No. 223,979.”

Limiting his finding of violation to the theft charge, the court revoked probation.

In his first ground, appellant contends the court abused its discretion in overruling his exception to the State’s amended motion to revoke.

While the allegations in a motion to revoke probation do not require the same particularity of an indictment or information, in all fairness the allegations as to violation of probation should be fully and clearly set forth in the revocation motion, so that the defendant and his counsel might be informed as to that upon which he will be called to defend. Tamez v. State, Tex. Cr.App., 534 S.W.2d 686; Graham v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 502 S.W.2d 809; Kuenstler v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 486 S.W.2d 367; Burk-ett v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 485 S.W.2d 578; Campbell v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 456 S.W.2d 918. When the allegations in the motion fail to fully inform the probationer, and the trial court refused to sustain an exception timely filed, the probationer is denied the rudiments of due process. Tamez v. State, supra; Graham v. State, supra; Kuenstler v. State, supra.

In the instant case the record reflects that although appellant stated “not true” when the court called for his plea, his counsel immediately, and before any further action was taken in the hearing, presented his exception to the court, and the court overruled it. The general allegation that appellant on or about [1] December 16, 1974 committed the offense of theft in Harris County, without further identification of the offense alleged to have been committed, did not give appellant or his counsel sufficient notice of the offense on which the State relied for revocation. Ta-mez v. State, supra; Graham v. State, supra; Campbell v. State, supra. The addition of the reference to the indictment in Cause No. 223,979 in the 174th Criminal District Court [2] was not sufficient notice of the offense relied on by the State in view of appellant’s exception. The accused was entitled to have the motion to revoke set forth in clear language the violation of the order of probation relied on for revocation. The failure of the motion to make such allegation was timely called to the trial court’s attention. The court erred in overruling[*180] appellant’s exception to the motion to revoke.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded.

Opinion approved by the Court.

DOUGLAS and ODOM, JJ., dissent.
1

. The term “on or about” includes any date prior to the presentment of the indictment within the period of limitation. Brown v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 475 S.W.2d 938, 956.

2

. The proceedings in the instant case were in the 176th District Court of Harris County.