Elder v. State, 677 S.W.2d 538 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). · Go Syfert
Search
Elder v. State, 677 S.W.2d 538 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
25 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Michael Wayne Caten v. State (texapp, 2010-01-29)
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985 2005 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Michael Wayne Caten v. State (2×) also: Cited "see"
Tex. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
Elder v. State, 677 S.W.2d 538, 539 (Tex. Crim.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ex Parte White
Tex. Crim. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
Finality of prior conviction Because the elements of the Delaware conviction are substantially similar to the elements of an offense listed under Subsection (c)(2)(B), we now consider whether such a prior conviction from another jurisdiction may be used to enhance *319 punishment in Texas if that conviction was probated and not revoked. 3 Citing Elder v. State, 677 S.W.2d 538, 539 (Tex.Crim.App.1984), applicant argues that, if a defendant were sentenced to probation, the state must introduce an order revoking probation or otherwise prove that the probation was revoked in order to establish the…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) White, Ex Parte James Timothy
Tex. Crim. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
Finality of prior conviction Because the elements of the Delaware conviction are substantially similar to the elements of an offense listed under Subsection (c)(2)(B), we now consider whether such a prior conviction from another jurisdiction may be used to enhance punishment in Texas if that conviction was probated and not revoked. (3) Citing Elder v. State , 677 S.W.2d 538, 539 (Tex. Crim.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Flores v. State
Tex. App. · 1993 · confidence medium
Hedicke v. State, 779 S.W.2d 837, 839 ; Drew v. State, 777 S.W.2d 74, 76 (Tex.Crim.App.1989); Murphy v. State, 111 S.W.2d 44, 61 (Tex.Crim.App.1989) (op. on reh’g); Elder v. State, 677 S.W.2d 538, 539 (Tex.Crim.App.1984); Ramey v. State, 575 S.W.2d 535, 537 (Tex.Crim.App.1978); Sherman v. State, 537 S.W.2d 262, 263-64 (Tex.Crim.App.1976); Lege v. State, 501 S.W.2d 880, 881-82 (Tex.Crim.App.1973); Mullins v. State, 492 S.W.2d 277, 278-79 (Tex.Crim.App.1973).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Wilson v. State
Tex. App. · 1993 · confidence medium
Elder v. State, 677 S.W.2d 538, 539 (Tex.Crim.App.1984); Murchison, 560 S.W.2d at 656 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Grunsfeld v. State (2×)
Tex. Crim. App. · 1992 · confidence medium
Hedicke, 779 S.W.2d at 839 ; Drew v. State, 777 S.W.2d 74 (Tex.Cr.App.1989); Murphy, 777 S.W.2d at 61 (opinion on rehearing); Elder v. State, 677 S.W.2d 538, 539 (Tex.Cr.App.1984); Ramey v. State, 575 S.W.2d 535, 537 (Tex.Cr.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Murphy v. State (2×)
Tex. Crim. App. · 1989 · confidence medium
Elder v. State, 677 S.W.2d 538, 539 (Tex.Cr.App.1984).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Murphy v. State
Tex. App. · 1985 · confidence medium
Elder v. State, 677 S.W.2d 538, 539 (Tex.Crim.
discussed Cited "see" Bruce Edwin Callins v. James A. Collins, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division
5th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Baehr v. State,' 615 S.W.2d 713, 716 (Tex. Crim.App.1981) (order of deferral not a finding of guilt), overruled on other grounds, Elder v. State, 677 S.W.2d 538, 539 (Tex.Crim.App.1984); see also Martinez-Montoya v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 904 F.2d 1018 , 1024 — 25 (5th Cir. 1990) (deferred adjudication not a final conviction for purposes of deportation proceedings); Green v. State, 663 S.W.2d 145, 146 (Tex.App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 1983, pet. ref'd) (reversing murder conviction where defendant was impeached by his deferred adjudication probation for theft). 3 .
cited Cited "see" Lester v. State
Tex. App. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Elder v. State, 677 S.W.2d 538, 539 (Tex.Crim.App.1984).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Brown v. State (2×)
Tex. Crim. App. · 1985 · signal: see also · confidence low
On that day, you also had your probation revoked, is that correct?” And in context of the preceding jousting over whether appellant had been convicted “on the 20th day of December, 1977 ... in Cause No. 10682 ... of burglary of a motor vehicle, and sentenced to the Texas Department of Corrections,” the question is certainly ambiguous since his probation was not revoked “on that day.” However, if Roliard v. State, 506 S.W.2d 904 (Tex.Cr.App.1974) is still the law — as it appears to be 2 — then for purpose of impeachment under Article 38.29, V.A.C.C.P., the prosecutor was entitled …
Ronald ELDER, Appellant,
v.
the STATE of Texas, Appellee
375-83.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct 10, 1984.
677 S.W.2d 538
Robert N. Eames, Denton, for appellant., Jerry Cobb, Dist. Atty., and Fred Marsh, Asst. Dist. Atty., Denton, Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.
McCormick, Clinton, Teague.
Cited by 23 opinions  |  Published

OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

McCORMICK, Judge.

Appellant was convicted of the offense of murder and punishment was assessed at sixty-five years in the Texas Department of Corrections. Following appeal, the Second Court of Appeals in Fort Worth reversed appellant’s conviction on the ground that the trial court erred in admitting a pen packet which contained an order revoking probation. We granted the State’s petition for discretionary review to consider that holding.

The pen packet introduced at trial in this cause shows that appellant was convicted of the offense of burglary, and a judgment of probation entered on October 10, 1975. Also contained in the pen packet is an “Order Revoking Probation” dated August 31, 1977, together with a sentence bearing the same date.

The rule has been often stated that under Article 37.07, V.A.C.C.P., at the punishment stage of the trial, the State is authorized to offer evidence of the prior criminal record of a defendant, but that prior criminal record is limited to proof of final convictions. Morgan v. State, 515 S.W.2d 278 (Tex.Cr.App.1974). To prove the finality of a probated conviction, the State is required to show that the probation was revoked. See Spiers v. State, 552 S.W.2d 851 (Tex.Cr.App.1977), and cases there cited.

The order revoking a probated conviction is undoubtedly part of a defendant’s “prior criminal record,” just as much as an information or indictment and a judgment are when coupled with a sentence, the trial court’s final judgment. White v. State, 171 Tex.Cr.R. 683, 353 S.W.2d 229 (1961). In fact, in Ex parte Murchison, 560 S.W.2d 654 (Tex.Cr.App.1978), this Court held that, in probation cases, the absence of a revocation order prevented the conviction from becoming a “final” conviction for purposes of enhancing punishment.

In reaching their conclusion, the Court of Appeals relied on this Court’s prior holding of Baehr v. State, 615 S.W.2d 713 (Tex.Cr.App.1981). We have reexamined that holding and are now convinced that we were in error when we concluded that an order revoking probation was not a “prior criminal record” within the meaning of Article 37.07, supra. Baehr v. State, supra, is overruled to the extent it conflicts with this holding.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded for consideration of appellant’s other grounds of error.

CLINTON and TEAGUE, JJ., dissent.