### NO. PD-_____-15

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS STATE OF TEXAS

____________________________ JOSEPH NABIL SIDHOM Appellant/Petitioner
vs. 

### THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee/Respondent

_________________________________ 

### APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

________________________________ Cause No. 05-15-00087-CR Court of Appeals, Fifth District At Dallas, Texas

___________________________________ Lawrence B. Mitchell SBN 14217500 P.O. Box 797632 Dallas, Texas 75379 Tel. No. 214.870.3440 E-mail: judge.mitchell@gmail.com Attorney for Petitioner/Appellant PD-1584-15 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 12/4/2015 3:45:39 PM Accepted 12/7/2015 1:43:42 PM

ABEL ACOSTA CLERK

### IDENTITY O F J UDG E, PARTIES, AND CO UNSEL

PRESIDING J UDGE: Th e Ho n o rab l e Tam m y Kem p , 2 0 4 th Di s t ri ct Co u rt
PARTIES: J o s ep h Nab i l Si dh o m , Ap pel l an t / Pet i t i o ner
Th e St at e o f Tex as , Ap p el l ee/ Res p o n d en t
Co u n s el : Tri al co un s el fo r Ap p el l an t:
An n Th o rn to n , P.O. Bo x 1 4 0 6 2 4 , Dal l as , Tex as 7 5 2 1 4 Ap p eal co un s el an d Pet i t i on fo r Di s cret i o n ary Rev i ew co u n s el fo r Ap p el l an t :
Lawren ce B. M i t ch el l , P.O. Bo x 7 9 7 6 3 2, Dal l as , Tex as 7 5 3 7 9
Tri al co un s el fo r t h e St at e: As s i st an t Di s t ri ct At t o rn ey Ro b ert A. M cCl u re 1 33 N. Ri v erfro n t Bl v d ., Dal las , Tex as 7 5 2 07 Ap p el l at e co u n s el fo r t h e St at e: Ap p el l at e an d Pet i ti o n co un s el fo r t h e St at e: As s i st an t Di s t ri ct At t o rn ey Lari s sa Ro ed er, Su s an Hawk , Cri m i n al Di s t ri ct At to rn ey , Dal l as Co u n t y , Tex as o r h er d es i g nat ed rep res en t at i v e, 1 3 3 N. Ri v erfro n t Bl vd ., Dal las , Tex as 7 5 2 07

i

### TABLE O F CO NTENTS

Id en t i t y o f J ud g e, Part ies , an d Co u n s el ......................................................................i
Tab l e o f Co n t en t s ......................................................................................................i i

In dex o f Au t ho ri t ies

. .................................................................................................i i i
St at em en t Reg ard i ng Oral Arg u m en t ........................................................................2
St at em en t o f t he Cas e ..................................... ..........................................................2
St at em en t o f Pro ced u ral Hi s t ory ................................................................................2
Gro un d fo r Rev i ew: ..................................................................................................3
I. W HETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS E R R E D IN HOLDING T H A T THE D ISTRICT COURT DID NOT ERR IN CONDUCTING THE HEAR I N G ON THE S T A T E ’ S A M E N D E D M O T I O N T O R E V O K E C O M M U N I T Y S U P E R

V I S I O N W I T H O U T A P P E L L A N T HAVING INTELLIGENTLY, KNOW INGLY AND VOLUNTARILY W AIVED HIS STATUTORY T EN DAY RIGHT TO PREPARE FOR THE PROCEEDING Arg um en t ....................................................................................................................3 Pray er fo r Rel i ef.........................................................................................................6
Cert i fi cat e o f W o rd -Co u n t Co m p l ian ce.....................................................................7
Cert i fi cat e o f Serv i ce.................................................................................................7 Ap p en d ix

iiINDEX OF AUTHORI TI ES
Ca s es :
As h cr a f t v. S t a t e , 9 0 0 S.W .2 d 8 1 7 (Tex . Ap p . - Co rp u s Ch ri s t i 1 9 95 ).....................4
Ca d d el l v. S ta t e , 6 05 S.W

. 2 d 2 7 5 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p . 1 9 8 0 ).......................................5 Ex p a rt e Ca r mo n a , 1 8 5 S.W .3 d 4 9 2 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p . 2 0 06 ).................................5

Ma r i n v. S t a te , 8 5 1 S.W .2 d 2 7 5 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p .1 9 93 )..........................................4

Po n ce v. S t a t e , 8 9 S.W .3 d 1 1 0 (Tex

. Ap p. - Co rp u s Ch ri s t i 2 0 0 2 )..........................4

Ri ckel s V S t a t e , 2 02 S.W .3 d 7 5 9 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p
. 2 0 0 6)........................................5
S a l d a n o v. S t a t e , 7 0 S.W .3 d 8 7 3 (Tex . Cri m . Ap p
. 2 0 0 2 )........................................4


### S T A T U T E S 

### :

T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . A N N . a rt. 1 .0 5 1 (a ) ........................................................3
T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . A N N . a rt. 1 .0 5 1 (e) ...........................................................4



### Tex a s Rules o f Appella t e Pro cedure:

T E X . R. A P P . P. 9 .4 (i ) (1 )

. . ......................................... . ...........................................7

T E X . R. A P P . P. 9 .4 (i ) (3 )

......................... . ............................................................7

iii

### NO. PD-_

_ __ _ -1 5

IN TH E CO URT O F CRIM INAL APPEALS STATE O F TEX AS

_ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J OSEPH NABI L SI DHOM Ap p el l an t/ Pet i ti o n er v s. 

### TH E STATE O F TEX AS , Ap p e llee/Resp o nd en t

_ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ A PPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DIS C RETIONARY REVIEW

_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ 

### Cau se No . 0 5 -1 5 -0 0 0 8 7 -CR Co u rt o f Ap p eals, Fif

th District At Dallas, Tex as

_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ _ TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES O F T HE COURT OF CRI MI NAL APPEALS:
COMES NOW Jo s ep h Nab i l Si d h om , ap p el l an t h erei n , an d res p ect fu l l y

s u b m i t s t h i s h is Pet i t i o n fo r D i s cret i o n ary Rev i ew o f t he d eci s i o n o f th e Co u rt o f

ap p eal s fo r t h e Fi ft h Di s t ri ct o f Tex as at Dal l as
.

1

### STATEM ENT REG ARDING O RAL ARG UM ENT

Ap p el l an t wai v es o ral arg u m en t

.



### STATEM ENT O F TH E CASE
Ap p el l an t was i n d i ct ed f o r t h e fel o n y o ffen s e o f Th eft

. O n J u n e, 1 8 , 2 0 1 3

ap p el l an t en t ered a n eg o t i at ed p l ea ag reem en t an d th e d i s tri ct co u rt fo un d ap p el l an t

g u i l t y s et t i n g h i s sen t en ce at co n fi n em en t i n t he p en i t en t i ary fo r ei g h t (8 ) y ears b ut

t h e i m p o s i t i o n of th e s en t en ce was s u s p en d ed an d ap p el l an t w as p l aced u n d er

co m m u n it y s u perv i s io n fo r ei g h t (8 ) y ears
. Du ri n g t he t e r m o f co m m u n i ty s u p erv i s i o n, th e St at e fi l ed a M ot i o n an d
Am en d ed M o t io n t h e Rev o k e ap p el l an t ’ s p ro b at i o n
. On J an u ary 14 , 2 0 1 5 ap p el l an t

en t ered a p l ea o f “ Tru e” t o so m e o f t h e al l eg at i o n s t h at h e h ad v i o l at ed t h e t erm s o f

co m m u n it y s u p erv is i o n an d a p l ea o f “ No t Tru e” t o o th er al l eg at i o n s
. Bas ed u p o n t h e
p l ea s a n d t h e ev i d en ce p res en t ed , t h e d i st ri ct co u rt rev o k ed ap p el l an t ’ s co m m u n i t y

s u p erv i s i o n an d i m

p o s ed t h e ei g h t (8 ) y ears s en t en ce o ri g i n al l y as s es s ed . No t i ce o f

ap p eal was t i m el y

g i v en
. STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL HI STORY
Th e u n p ub l i s hed o p in i o n o f t h e Co u rt o f Ap peal s fo r t he Fi ft h Di s t ri ct o f Tex as

at Dal l as affi rm in g th e ju d g m en t o f t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt w as d el i v ered o n No v em b er 5,
2 0 1 5 . No M o t i o n fo r Reh eari n g was fi l ed

.
2

### G RO UND FO R REVIEW
I.

W HETHER THE COURT OF A P P E ALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE DISTRI C T COURT DID NOT ERR I N CONDUCTING THE H EARING ON THE S T A T E ’ S A M E N D E D M O T I O N T O R E V O K E C O M M U N I T Y S U P E R

V I S I O N W I T H O U T A P P E L L A N T HAV I NG INTELLIGENTLY, KNOW INGLY AND VOLUNTARILY W AIVED HIS STATUTORY TEN DAY RIGHT TO PREPARE FOR THE PROCEEDING



### ARG UM ENT

THE COURT OF AP P E ALS H AS DECIDED AN IM PORTANT QUESTION O F STATE L AW IN A W AY T H A T C O N F L I C T S W I T H T H E A P P L I C A B L E DECISI O N S O F T H E C O U RT OF CRIM INAL APPEALS Ap p el l an t recei ved a co p y o f t h e St at e’ s M o t i o n t h e Rev o k e P r o b a t i o n o n
Decem b er 1 8 , 2 0 1 4 an d co u n s el was ap p oi n t ed

. Th e St at e s u bs eq u en t l y fi l ed an
Am en d ed Mo t i o n t o Rev o k e Pro b at i o n b u t ap p el l an t an d co un s el d i d n o t recei v e a

co p y o f t h e Am en ded M o ti on u n t il t h e d ay o f t h e h eari n g o n t h e Am en d ed M o t i o n.
Un d er T ex as l aw, ap p el l an t h ad t he “ ri gh t t o co n s u l t i n pri v a te wi t h co u n s el

s u ffi ci en t l y i n ad v an ce o f a p ro ceed i n g to al l o w ad eq uat e p rep arat i o n fo r t h e

p ro ceed in g .” T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . A N N . a rt. 1.0 5 1 (a ) (em p h as i s su p p l i ed ). Th e

3p u rp os e o f t h i s p ro v i s i o n i s t o al l o w ap po i n t ed co u ns el a reas o n ab l e am o u n t o f t i m e

t o p rep are a defen s e. As h cr a f t v. S t a t e , 9 0 0 S.W

. 2 d 8 1 7, 8 2 9 (Te x
. Ap p
. - Co rp u s
Ch ri s t i 1 9 9 5 ). Ap p o in t ed co u ns el , by s t at u t e, h as t e n ( 1 0 ) d ay s t o p rep are fo r a
p ro ceed in g b u t co u n s el can w a i v e t h e p rep arat io n ti m e wi t h t h e co n sen t o f t h e
d efen d an t i n wri t i n g o r o n t h e reco rd i n o pen co u rt

. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . A N N .

a rt. 1 .0 51 (e)

. Ho w e v e r , t o b e effect i v e, th e wai v er m u s t b e m ad e in t el l i g en t l y , k n o wi n g l y an d v o l u n t ari l y
. A w ai v er n o t s o m ad e i s ak i n t o n o wai v er an d t h erefo re

can b e rai s ed fo r t he fi rs t t i m e o n ap p eal

. See Sa l d a n o v. S t a t e , 70 S.W

. 3 d 8 7 3 , 8 8 8 (Tex

. Cri m
. Ap p
. 2 0 0 2 ); Ma r i n v. S t a t e , 8 5 1 S.W .2 d 27 5 , 2 8 0 (Tex

. Cri m
. Ap p .1 9 9 3 );

Po n ce v. S t a t e , 8 9 S.W .3 d 1 1 0 (Tex

. Ap p. - Co rp u s Ch ri s t i 2 0 0 2 ). Ap p el l an t co m

pl ai n s h erei n t h at h e d i d no t h av e s u ffi ci en t t i m e n ot i ce o f t h e
al l eg at i o n s i n t h e St at e’ s Am en d ed M o t i o n t o Rev o ke p ro b at i o n
. Ap p el l an t an d h i s

co u ns el were n o t aware of t h e n ew al l eg at i o n s in t h e Am en d ed M o t io n u n t i l t h e d ay

o f t h e rev o c a t i o n h eari n g. A p pel l an t ’ s o n reco rd wai v er w as m ad e wi th o ut h av i n g
b een pro p erl y

ad v i s ed o f t h e co n s eq uen ces o f a p o ten t i al wai v er.
Th e co u rt o f ap p eal s o pi ni o n n o t es co rrect l y , an d n o t d i s p u t ed b y ap p el l an t o n
d i rect ap p eal o r i n t h i s Pet i t i o n , t h at t h e t ri al reco rd refl ect ed t h at ap p el l an t an d

a p po i nt ed co u n sel wai v ed t h e s t at u t o ry ten -d ay p eri od t o prep are fo r t ri al

. (s l i p

o p i n i o n , p
. 3 ). Bu t t h is was a m ere facad e o f s t at ut o ry co m p li an ce. Ap p el l an t was n ot

4al l o wed t o co n s u l t i n “ p ri v at e” wi t h co u ns el , ab o u t h i s s t at u t ory ri g h t

. Th e

“ co n s u l t at i on ” co ns i st ed o f n o m o re t h an tri al co u n sel ex pl ai ni n g t o ap p e l l an t t h at
h e had th e ri g h t t o w a i v e t h e t en -d ay peri o d

. (s l i p o pi n i o n p
. 3 ). T h ere was n o

co n su l t at i o n i n wh i ch co u n s el ex pl ai n ed ap pel l an t ’ s ri g h ts t o h i m o r co un s el ed h i m

o n w h et h er i t was i n h i s b es t i n t eres t to co n s en t t o t h e wai v er. Un d er Tex as l aw,
ap p oi n t ed co u ns el , as was o n ce s o art fu l l y p hras ed , i s m ore t han “

. ..a p o tt ed p l an t .”
Rev o cat i o n o f co m

m u n i t y s u p erv i si on m

u s t b e b as ed o n t h e al leg at i o n s t i m el y
k n o wn b y t h e p ro b at i on er pri or t o t h e h eari n g
. R i ckel s V S ta t e , 2 0 2 S.W .3 d 7 5 9 , 7 6 3 (Tex

. C ri m
. Ap p
. 2 00 6 ); Ex p a r t e Ca r mo n a , 1 8 5 S.W

. 4 9 2 , 4 9 5 (Tex

. Cri m
. Ap p.
2 0 0 6 ); Ca d

d el l v. S t a t e , 6 0 5 S

. W. 2 d 2 7 5 , 2 7 7 (Tex

. Cri m
. Ap p
. 1 98 0 ). If t h e
al l eg at i o n s are n ot t i m el y k n o wn an d if t h e d e f e n dan t d o es no t in t el l i g en t l y , k n o wi n g l y an d v ol u n t ari ly w a iv e t i m el y n ot i ce, t h en t h e p u rp o rt ed wai v er i s n o t v al i d. Ap p el l an t co m

p l ai n ed o n d i rect ap p eal t hat h i s o n - reco rd w ai v er o f t h e

s t at u to ry ri g h t of t en d ay s t o p rep are fo r th e h eari n g w as n o t i n t el l i g en t l y , k n o wi n g l y

o r v o l u n tari l y m ad e b ecau s e h e was n o t affo rd ed t h e ri g h t t o co n s ul t i n p ri v at e wi th

co u ns el ab o ut t h e pro pri et y o r d et ri m en t of wai v er. Th e op i n i o n o f t h e co u rt o f

ap p eal s s t at es t h at “ (t )h e reco rd ...refl ect s t h at ap pel l an t ’ s ap p oi n t ed co u n sel wai v ed

t h e s t at u t o ry t en -d ay p eri o d wi t h ap p el l an t ’ s co n s en t on th e reco rd i n op en co u rt .” Bu t

was t h at wai v er in t el l i g en t l y , k n o wi n g l y , an d i n t el l i g en tl y m ad e? Th e o p i ni o n o f t h e

5co u rt o f ap p eal s fai l s to ad d res s t h i s i s s u e: t h e i s su e t h at was rai s ed b y ap p el l an t

.

Ap p el l an t ’ s wai v er was n o t in co m p l i an ce w i t h t h e l et ter or th e s p i ri t o f t h e l aw. Ap p el l an t ’ s wai v er was n ot m ad e aft er co n s u l t at i o n i n “ pri v at e” wi th h i s co u n s el - t h e
l et t er o f t h e l aw- n o r was t h ere i n fact an y m e a n i n gfu l co n s u l t at i o n at al l -t h e s p i ri t

o f t h e l aw. T h e o pi n i o n o f th e co u rt o f ap p eal s co n fl i ct s wi th th e ap pl i cab l e d eci s i on s

o f t he Co u rt o f Cri m i n al Ap p eal s t h at an y wai v er m ad e b y a d efen d an t i s p ro p er o n l y
i f m ad e i n tel l i g en t l y , k n o wi n g l y an d v ol u n t ari l y
. Pro p er reas o n fo r g ran t i n g t h i s
Pet i t io n fo r Di s cret io n ary Rev i ew h as b een p res en t ed

. 

### P RAYER FO R RELIEF

W HEREFORE, F OR THE FOREGOI NG REASONS, ap p el lan t p ray s t h at

t h i s Pet i t i o n Fo r Di scret i o n a r y R e v i e w b e g ran t ed an d, u po n fu rt h er b ri efi ng o f t h e
p art i es , t h e p en di ng cau s e s ho u l d b e rev ers ed an d rem an d ed

. Res p ect fu l ly

s u b m i t t ed , / s / Lawren ce B. M i t ch el l

Lawren ce B. M i t ch el l SBN 1 4 2 1 7 5 0 0 P.O. Bo x 7 9 7 6 3 2 Dal l as , Tex as 7 5 3 7 9 2 1 4.8 7 0 .3 4 40 ju dg e.m i t ch el l @ g m ai l .co m
Co u n sel fo r Pet i t i on er/ Ap p el l an t

6

### CERTIFICATE O F WO RD-CO UNT CO MPLIANCE

I hereb y cert i fy , i n co m

p l i an ce wi t h Ru l e 9 .4 (i ) (3 ) o f t h e Tex as Ru l es o f Ap p el l at e Pro ced u re, t h at th i s do cu m en t co n t ai n s 1 0 8 5 wo rd s , i ncl u d i n g al l co n t en t s

ex cep t fo r t h e s ect i o ns o f t h e Pet i t i o n t o b e ex cl u d ed b y Ru le 9

. 4 (i ) (1 ) o f t h e Tex as
Ru l es o f Ap p el l at e Pro ced ure, an d i n co m p l i an ce wi t h Ru l e 9 .4 (i ) (2 )(D) o f t h e Tex as
Ru l es o f Ap p el l at e Pro ced u re.

/ s / Lawren ce B. M i t ch el l



### CERTIFICATE O F SERVICE

I h ereb y cert i fy t h at a t ru e an d co rrect co p y o f t h is Pet i t i o n fo r Di s cret i o n ary
Rev iew is b ei n g s erv ed of t h i s t h e 4 t h d ay o f Decem b er, 2 0 1 5 v ia t h e serv i ce fu n ct i o n
i n eFi l e Tex as , o n th e at t o rn ey s fo r t h e St a t e : ( 1) Lo ri Ord i way , A s s i s t an t Di s t ri ct
At t o rn ey , Dal l as Co un ty , Tex as t o l o ri .o rd i way @ d al las co un t y
. o rg an d (2 ) t h e St at e
Pro s ecu ti n g At t o rn ey

at i nfo rm at i on @ sp a.t ex as .g o v
.

/ s / Lawren ce B. M i t ch el l

7

### APPENDIX

2 0 1 5 W L 6 7 5 1 1 3 3
Co u rt o f Ap peal s o f Tex as ,

Dal las

. J o s ep h Nab i l Si d h o m , Ap pel l an t

v
. Th e St at e o f Tex as , Ap p el l ee
No . 0 5

– 1 5 –0 0 0 8 7

– CR Op i ni o n Fi l ed No v em

b er 5 , 2 0 15

M EM ORANDUM OPINION Op i ni o n b y

J u s t ice M y ers Ap p el l an t Jo s ep h Nab i l Si d h o m p l ead ed g u i lt y t o t h e o ffen s e o f t h e f t o f

p ro p ert y o f an ag g reg at e v al u e o f $ 2 0 ,0 0 0 o r m o re b ut l es s t h an $ 10 0 ,0 0 0

. In

acco rd an ce wi t h a n eg o t i at ed p l ea ag reem en t, t h e t ri al co u rt fo un d ap p el lan t g u i l t y ,

s en t en ced h i m t o ei gh t y ears ' i m p ri s o n m en t , su s pen d ed im p o s it i o n o f t h e s en t en ce,

an d p l aced ap p el l an t o n t e n y ears ' co m m un i t y s u p erv is i o n
. Th e co urt al s o as s es s ed

a $ 2 0 0 0 fi ne an d ord ered pay m en t o f $2 7 ,1 5 4.1 4 i n res t i t u t i o n
. Th e St at e

s u b s eq u en t l y fi l ed a m ot i o n t o rev o k e p ro b at i o n , fo l l o w ed b y an am en d ed m o t i o n to
Pag e 1 of 7rev o k e. Ap p el l an t en t ered an o p en p l ea o f “ t ru e” t o fo ur o f t h e s i x v io l at i o n s al l eg ed

i n t h e am en d ed m o t i o n to rev o k e. Th e t ri al co u rt fo u nd t h at ap p el lan t co m m i t t ed t h e
al l eg ed v i o l at i o n s , rev o k ed ap p el l an t 's co m m u n i t y su p erv is i on , an d s en t en ced h i m to
ei g h t y ears ' i m

p ri s o n m en t

. In o n e i s s u e, ap p el l an t co n t en d s t h e t ri al co u rt erred by

co n du c t i n g t h e h eari n g o n t h e St at e's am en d ed m o t i o n t o rev o k e wi th o u t ap p el l an t
h av in g v o l u n t ari l y , i n t el l i g en t l y an d kn o wi n g ly wai v ed t h e s t at u t o ry t en -d ay
p r ep arat i o n p eri o d b efo re t h e rev o cat i on h eari n g
. As m o d i fi ed , we affi rm t h e t ri al

co u rt 's ju d g m en t

. Di s cus s i o n
In h is is s u e, ap p el l an t arg u es t he t ri a l c o u r t erred b y co n d u ct in g t he h eari n g o n t h e
St at e's am en d ed m o t i o n t o rev o k e co m m u ni t y s u p erv is io n b ecau se ap p el l an t d i d n ot

v o l u n t ari l y , i nt el l i g en t l y , or k n owi ng l y wai v e t h e s t at u t o ry t en -d ay p eri o d t o p rep are
fo r t h e h eari n g
.

“ ‘ Ap p el l at e rev i ew o f an o rd er rev o k i n g [co m m u n i t y s up erv i s i o n ] i s l i m i t ed

t o ab u s e o f t h e t ri al co u rt 's d i s cret i o n .’ ” Ri ck el s v
. St at e, 2 0 2 S.W .3 d 7 59 , 7 6 3 (Tex

. Cri m
. A p p
. 2 0 0 6 ) (q u o t i ng Card o n a v
. St at e, 66 5 S.W .2 d 49 2 , 4 9 3 (Tex

. Cri m
. Ap p.
1 9 8 4 )). Th e co de o f cri m i n al p ro ced u re m an dat es t hat co un s el ap p o i n ted t o rep res en t

an i n d ig en t d efen d an t i s en t i tl ed t o t en d ay s t o p rep are fo r a p ro ceed in g . Tex . Co d e
Cri m
. Pro c. An n
. art

. 1 .0 5 1 (e) (W es t Su p p
. 2 0 1 4 ). Ho wev er, ap p o i n t ed co un s el m ay

Pag e 2 of 7wai v e t h e st at u t o ry t en -d ay p rep arat i o n p eri od wi t h t h e co n s en t o f t h e d efen d an t in
wri t in g o r o n t he reco rd i n o p en co u rt . Id

. Acco rd i ng t o th e reco rd , t h e St at e's o ri g in al m o ti o n t o rev o k e p ro b at i o n , fi l ed

o n N o v e m

b er 26 , 2 0 1 3 , al leg ed t h ree p ro b at i o n v i o l at i on s
. Th e St at e fi l ed an

am en d ed m o t i o n t o rev o k e o n J an u ary 9 , 2 0 15

. Th e a m e n d ed m ot i o n in cl ud ed t h e

t h ree v i o l at i o n s al l eg ed i n t h e o ri g i n al m ot i o n an d th ree ad d i t i o n al v io l at i o n s
. At t h e
J an u ary 1 4 , 2 01 5 rev o cat i o n h eari n g , d e f e n s e co u n s el i nfo rm ed t h e co u rt s h e fi rs t
l earn ed o f, an d fi rs t rev i ewed , t h e St at e's am en d ed m o t i o n earl ier t h at d ay
. Defen s e

co u ns el s t at ed , “ I h av e b een o ver t h e m o t i o n , h o wev er, wi t h m y cl i en t t h i s m o rn i n g.
W e di s cu s s ed t h e al l eg at i o n s an d w e are p l ead i n g No t Tru e to s o m e o f t h e al l eg at i on s
i n t h at m o t io n [.] ” Defen s e co un s el i n fo rm ed th e co urt t h at s h e h ad n o t ifi ed t h e St at e

o f ap p el l an t 's pl eas an d t h at s h e ex cl u d e d t h e a l l eg ed v i o l at i o n s to wh i ch ap p el l an t

was p lead i n g “ n o t t ru e” fro m ap p el l an t 's o p en p l ea p ap erwo rk

. Th e tri al co u rt co n fi rm ed t h at d efen s e co u n sel h ad l es s th an t en day s t o p rep are
fo r t h e p ro ceed i ng o n t he am en d ed m o t i o n t o rev o k e. Th e co urt as ked ap p el l an t i f h e

wan ted t o wai v e t h e t en day s an d g o fo rward wi t h t h e rev o cat i o n p ro ceed i n g , o r i f h e

wan ted t h e co u rt t o d el ay t h e p ro ceed i n g s ten day s t o co n s u l t wi t h h i s at t o rn ey an d

p rep are hi s cas e t o m o ve fo rward

. Ap p el lan t s p o ke b ri efl y w i t h d efen s e co u n s el , wh o

as k e d i f h e wan t ed t o wai t t en d ay s o r p ro ceed wi t h t he heari n g
. Defen s e co u n s el

Pag e 3 of 7as k ed : “ Do y o u wan t t o wai t t e n d a ys o r d o y o u wan t t o p ro ceed t o d ay ? It i s y o u r

p l eas u re. W h at ev er y o u deci d e. If y o u t h i nk yo u n eed m o re t i m e t o g at h er m o re

ev i d en ce t o t h i nk ab o u t wh at i s b ei n g d o n e, o r d o y o u wan t to wa i t an d p ro ceed

t o d ay ? ” Ap p el lan t rep l i ed , “ P r o c eed ,” an d d efen s e co u n s el no t i fi ed t h e co u rt t h at

ap p el l an t “ wan t s t o p ro ceed t o d ay .” T h e t ri al co u rt t h en as k ed ap p e l l a n t , “ M r.
Si d h om , y o u 'v e had an o p p o rt u ni t y t o co n s u l t wi t h y o u r at t o rn ey an d i s i t y o u r d es i re

t o wai ve o r g i ve u p t h at t en d ay s an d p r o c e e d wi t h y o u r h eari ng t o d ay ? ” Ap p el l an t

an s wered , “ Yes , m a'am .” Ap p el l an t t h ereaft er en t ered an o p en p l ea o f t ru e t o fo u r o f

t h e si x al l eg at i o n s al l eg ed i n t h e St at e's am en d ed m o t i o n t o rev o k e. Th e t ri al co u rt

as k ed ap pel l an t : “ Yo u hav e h eard y o u r at t o rn ey en t er t h os e p l eas o n y ou r beh al f. Are

t h o s e, in fact , y o ur p l eas ? ” Ap p el l an t s ai d , “ Yes , m a'am .” Th e co u rt t h en as k ed , “ An d

y o u are y o u en t eri n g t h os e p leas freel y an d v o l un t ari l y ? ” Ap pel l an t res p o n d ed , “ Yes ,

m a'am .” Ap p el l an t ack n o wl ed g es h i s i n -co urt w ai v er an d t h e fact t h at “ t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt
h ad m o re t h an su ffi ci en t ev i d en ce, i ncl u d i n g ap p el l an t's pl ea o f ‘ Tru e’ t o fo u r (4 ) o f

t h e al l eg at i o n s , t o ex erci se h er d i s cret i o n an d rev oke a ppe l la nt' s pr oba tion. ” A

ppe lla nt

n o n et h el es s arg u es h i s wai v er was n o t v o l un t ari l y , i nt el l i g en tl y , o r k no wi ng l y m ad e

an d t h at hav in g a ten -d ay d el ay “ m ay h av e” affo rd ed h i m an o p p o rt u n i t y t o p res en t

m i t i gat in g ev i d en ce in su p po rt o f h i s t es t i m o n y at t h e rev o cat i o n h eari n g
. Th e reco rd ,
Pag e 4 of 7h o wev er, refl e c t s t h at ap pel l an t 's ap p o i n t ed co un s el wai v ed t h e s t at u t ory t en -d ay

p eri o d w i t h a p p e l l an t 's co n s en t o n t h e reco rd in o p en co u rt

. See id .; cf. Hen s o n v.
St at e, 5 3 0 S.W .2 d 5 84 , 5 85 (Tex

. Cri m
. Ap p
. 1 9 7 5 ) (v i o lat i o n o f art i cl e 1 .0 5 1 (e)
wh ere reco rd “ refl ect s no p ro p erl y ex ecu t ed wai v er o f t h e s tat u t o ry t en d ay p eri o d ”);
As h ley v
. St at e, No

. 0 5 –1 4

– 0 0 21 7

– CR, 20 1 5 W L 4 0 77 3 2 1 , at * 2 (Tex

. Ap p .– Dal l as
J u l y 6, 2 0 1 5 , n o p et .) (s am e). Th u s , ap p el l an t h as n o t s h own t h at a v io l at i o n o f art i cl e
1 .0 51 (e) o ccu rred , an d t h e t ri a l co u rt d i d n ot ab u s e i t s d i s cret i o n b y rev o k i n g
ap p el l an t 's co m

m u n i t y s up erv i s i o n . W e o verru l e ap p el lan t 's i s s u e.
W e al s o n o t e t hat t he j u d g m en t i n t h i s cas e reci t es : “ Th e Co u rt FINDS
Defen d an t h as v i o l a t e d t h e co n d i t i o n s of co m m u n i t y su p erv i s i o n as s et o u t i n t h e
St at e's AM ENDED M o t i o n t o Rev o k e Co m m un i t y Su p erv i s i o n as fo l l o w s : See

at t ach ed Mo t i o n t o Rev o k e Co m m u n i t y Su p erv i s i o n.” A co p y o f th e St at e's am en d ed

m o ti o n t o rev o k e i s at t ach ed to t h e ju d g m en t , b u t t h e reco rd s h o ws ap p el l an t p l ead ed

“ t ru e” t o o n l y fo u r o f t he si x v i o l a t i o n s al leg ed i n t h e St at e's am en d ed m o t i o n to

rev o k e: (a[1 ] ) co m

m i t ti n g t he offen s e of “ As s au l t Bo d il y In ju ry / Fam i l y M em

b er” o n

o r ab o u t Oct o b er 2 6 , 2 0 1 3 ; (d ) n o t rep o rt in g t o co m m u n it y s u p erv i s io n fro m Sep tem b er 2 0 1 3 t h ro u g h Decem

b er 2 0 1 4 ; (g ) t rav el i n g o u ts i de o f Dal l as Co u n t y , o n
Decem b er 1 5 , 20 1 4 , w i t ho u t h av i n g fi rs t o b t ai n ed wri t t en p erm i s s i o n fro m th e Co u rt

o r Su p erv i s i n g Offi cer; an d (p ) n o t p ay i n g res t i t u ti o n as d i rect ed

. Ap p el l an t p l ead ed

Pag e 5 of 7“ n o t t ru e” t o t h e o t h er two v i o l at i o n s al l eg ed i n t h e am en d ed m o t i o n : (a[2 ] )

co m m i t t i n g t h e o ffen s e o f “ [v ] i o l at i o n o f Bo n d / Pro t ect iv e Ord er” o n o r ab o ut
No v em b er 1 8 , 2 01 3 i n D en t o n Co u n t y, T e x a s , an d (i ) fai l i n g t o s u p p o rt h i s
d ep en d en t s. T h e t ri al co u rt accep t ed th e p l eas o f t ru e an d fo u n d ap pel l an t v i o l at ed t h e

co n di t i o n s of h is co m

m u n i t y superv i s i o n
. Becau s e we h av e t h e n eces s ary i n fo rm at i o n
i n t h e reco rd t o d o s o , w e wi l l t h erefo re refo rm t h e ju d g m e n t i n t h i s cas e t o s h o w
ap p el l an t v i o l at ed co n d i t i on s (a[1 ] ), (d ), (g ), a n d ( p ), as al l eg ed i n th e St at e's

am en d ed m o t i o n to rev o k e p ro b at i o n. See Tex

. R. Ap p
. P. 4 3.2 (b ); Bi g l e y v
. S t a t e,
8 6 5 S.W

. 2 d 2 6 , 2 7– 2 8 (Tex

. Cri m
. Ap p
. 1 9 93 ); As berry v
. St at e, 8 13 S.W. 2 d 5 2 6 , 5 2 9

– 3 0 (Tex

. Ap p .– Dal l as 1 9 9 1 , p et

. r e f ' d ) ; Bri g h t m o n v
. St at e, No s
. 0 5

– 1 3

– 0 13 7 1

– CR, 0 5

– 13

– 0 1 3 7 2

– CR , 0 5

– 1 3– 0 13 7 3

– CR, an d 0 5

– 1 3 –0 1 37 4

– CR,
2 0 1 5 W L 3 6 5 3 2 3 5 , at * 5 (Tex

. Ap p
. – Dal l as J u n e 1 2 , 2 0 1 5 , n o p et .) (m em
. o p ., n ot
d es i g n at ed f

o r p u b l i cat io n ); M an i m o i v
. St at e, No

. 05

– 1 2

– 0 0 5 8 6

– CR, 2 0 1 3 W L
4 6 2 4 8 2 0 , at * 1 (Tex

. Ap p .– D al las Au g
. 2 , 20 1 4 , p et

. ref'd ) (m em
. o p ., n o t d es i g n at ed
fo r p u b l i cat i o n ).
As m o d i fi ed , we affi rm

t h e t ri al co urt 's ju d g m en t

.

Pag e 6 of 7Pag e 7 of 7