### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN

NO. 03-00-00681-CR

Todd Adam

Beckf ord, Appell ant
v. The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE DISTRI CT COUR T OF W ILLIAMSON

COUNTY, 368TH JU

DICIA L DISTRIC T, NO. 94-799-K368, HONORABLE BURT CARNES, JUDG E PRESIDING

To dd B eck for d ap pea ls fro m the r evo cat ion o f his pro bat ion. He contends that t he dis trict court erred by

fi ndi ng the State met

i ts b ur den to pr ove t hat it u sed due diligence in exe cut ing it s arrest warrant; he contends this error deprived hi m of due pr o ce ss . Co nc lud ing t ha t t he St at e d id not bear t he bur den t o p ro ve du e diligence in this ca se, we w ill affirm the r evo cat ion. T his is the seco nd revo cat ion of Beckfor d’s proba tion f or thi s of f en se. In accordance wi th Beckf ord’s Decem

ber 19 95 ple a b ar ga in, t he co ur t o r igin ally s en t en ce d h im t o t wo yea r s insta te jail f or f orge ry, but de f

erred ad j udi ca ti on of guilt pendi

ng com ple tion of f our years of probati on. On June 19, 1996, t he State moved to revoke his de f

erred-adj udication prob ati on an d the di stri ct court is sued a wa rr ant for Bec kfo rd ’s ar re st . Fo llowing his ar re st in Augus t 199 6, Bec kfo rd nego t iate d t he ple a bargai n unde rly in g the judgm

ent dated September 3, 1996, i n wh ic h the di strict court adj udic ated1 The l en gth of the pr obation period ini tial ly im posed a fi ve-y ear period—one y

ear more than Beckf ordaccepted in

the ple a bargai

n. On Jul y 19, 2000, t he dist rict co ur t ent er ed a nunc p ro t unc or der which r edu ced t he pr oba t ion p er iod t o fo ur years in confo rmity wit h t he plea bar gain. 2 his guil t and assess ed

punishment at t wo years, but pr obated confi nem ent for four years. 1 The S tate
move d to revoke this

second probation on Novem ber 22, 1996; on Novem

ber 25, 199 6, the

court ag ain i ssued a warran

t for Be ckf

ord’sarrest. Al

most four years l ater, on J

ul y 13, 200 0, Bec

kf ord surrendered

to th e p rob ati

on de pa rtm en t. Th e S tate am en de d i ts m oti on to r ev o ke pr o ba t io n o n Ju ly 24, 20 00 , alle gin g ma ny mo r e v io lat io ns o f t he pr o ba t io n c o nd it io ns t ha t ha d o cc ur r ed in t he int er im. On August 28, 2000, Be ck f

ord f i l ed a m oti on t o d ismi ss t he St at e’s mo t ion t o r evo ke, co nt ending that t he St at e fa iled t o us e d ue dilig en ce in appr eh en di n g h i m af ter f i l i n g i ts Novem be r 19 96 m oti on to revoke probation and the i ssuan ce of the arrest warrant. He also requested that t he court disch arge him f rom p robati on. T he dis t r ic t cour t revoked his probation on August 30, 2000 and assessed a sent ence of t wo years in sta t e jail. This r evo cat ion wa s wit hin the t er m of Bec kfo rd ’s pr oba t ion.

Beckf ordco nt ends t hat t he court erred by fi ndi ng the State met

i ts b urden of proof that i t used d ue di l i gen ce i n exe cuti ng i ts arres t warran t. Herel i eson Rodrigue

z v. State to establi sh t he pr oce du

reto be f oll owed when

the defe ndan t asserts the Stat e fai

le d to use due di

li gence. In that
ca se , the c our

t of cri m i n al appe als w

rote
In Prior , we reaff

irm ed our rules re lating t o r evo cat ion after t he probation ary term has expired. We he ld: [A] tri al cou rt h asj urisd

i cti on to re v oke
. . . pr ob ati

on i m pos ed pu rs ua n t to A rt. 42.12, § 3d [V .A.C .C.P.], after t h e probationary term has expired , as long as bot h a moti on a l l eg i ng a v i ol ati on of prob ati ona ry term s is f i l ed an d a ca piasor arrest wa rr an t is is su ed pr io rt o t he ex pi r at io n o f t he t er m, fo llo we d b y du e dil ige nceto apprehen

d the probationer

and t o he ar and d et er mine the a llegat ions in t he mo t io n. I n d o ing so , we ex pr es sly u ph o ld ou r d ecisio n in Coleman , 632 S.W.2 d 616 . . . .2 In Breche isen v. St ate , the court did n

ot in cl ude l anguage

lim iting t he du e- di

l i gen ce de f ense to pos t-ex pi rati on revocat ions. See Brecheisen , 4 S. W.3 d 76 1, 763 (T ex. Crim. Ap p. 199 9) . T he court in Brecheisen , was considerin g a post-ex pi rati on rev ocati on. Id. at 763 . T he ca ses c ited by the c ourt in Brecheisen as wel

l a s by the parties h

ere regardin

g the due-dil

ige nce requi remen t are a llpostex pi rati on revocati ons. See Con nolly v. State , 983 S.W.2d738, 739 (T ex. Cr im . App . 19 99) ; Harri s v. State , 843 S.W .2d 34, 3 5 (Tex . Cri m . App. 1992 ); Rodriguez , 804 S. W.2dat 517 ; Langston v. State , 808 S.W.2d 553, 554 (T ex. Cr im . App . 19 90) ; Prior v. State , 7 95 S .W. 2d 1 79, 179 -8 0 ( Te x. Crim. App. 199 0); Guillot v. State , 543 S.W .2d 650 , 651 (Tex. Cri m . App. 1976 ).
3 Judge Kel

le rre mark ed t hat t he co ur t in Stover created the due-dil

ige ncedo ct r ine “o ut o f t hin ai r.” See Con nolly v. Sta te , 983 S. W. 2d 73 8, 74 1 ( T ex . Cr im. App. 1999 ) (Ke l l er, J., c oncu rri ng)
. 3 Prior , [795 S.W .2d 179 , 184 (Tex. Cri m . Ap p. 1990 )]. Rodriguez , 804 S.W.2d 516, 517 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (emph asi s added, foo t not es o mitt ed) . T he courtst at es , ho we ve r , t ha t it is spea king only of post -expiration revocations. 2 I nd ee d, in t he ca se in whi ch the doctrine

origi nated3 the court wrot e: The me re fact t hat a mot ion has been filed du ring t he pr oba t ion t er m alleging a vi ol ati on of t he cond

i tions of proba tion wil l not auth oriz e rev ocati on af ter such term hasex pir ed . Onl

y the c ourt’s a

cti on au thori zi ng th e arre st of th

e prob ati oner, followed by dili gent effor t t o a ppr ehend and he ar and d et er mine the c laimed violat ion, can authoriz e revocation af ter t he probation term

has en ded.
Stover v. State , 36 5 S .W .2d

80 8, 8 09 (Tex . C ri

m . A pp . 19 63 ). Th e statu

te g ov er n i n g c om m un i ty supervisi on pro vides as foll

ows:
At an y ti me d uri ng the pe riod of comm uni ty superv is ion the judge m

ay is sue a war ra nt f orviolat ion o f any of t he co ndit ions o f the co mmunity supe rvisio n and cau se t he defend ant to be arrested. An y s upervi si on off

ic er, poli ce off

ic er or oth er of f i cer w i th power of ar re st m ay ar re st s uc h de f en da n t wi th or w i th out a war ra nt upon the order of the judge to be n ot ed on the docket of t he co ur t . A d efenda nt so ar re st ed may be det ained in t he cou

n ty jail or o t her app ro pr iate place of c onfinement unt il he can be taken be f ore the judge . Such off

ic er shal l f ort hwi th report such

arres t an d de ten ti on to such j udge. If the def endan t has not been rel

eas ed o n ba il, on mo t ion by t he4

defend ant the judge sh all caus e the def endan t to be br ought b ef ore the judge

f or a hear ingwit hin 20 d ays o f fi ling of sai d motion, an

d after a hea

rin g withouta j ury, m

ay ei ther c onti nue , ex tend , modi f

y , or revoke

the c omm

uni ty s uperv i sion.
Te x. Code Cr im. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 21( b) (West Supp. 2001) . Though the code requires that the a rresti ng of f i cer report

the arrest “forthwi

th,” there is n

o expressed

t ime limit on th

e e xe cu ti on of the ca piasor an y req ui rem en t of dil ige nce. We fi

nd no requi

remen t in statut ory or case l awthat t he State sh ow d ue di l i ge nc e i n s ee ki ng arres t of a p rob ati on violat or when t he probation i s revoked dur ing t he pe rio d o f the pr oba t ion.

In t his cas e, the

courtre vok ed B eck for d’s p ro bat ion o n Augu st 30, 200 0 befo re t he prob ati on pe riod expi red in Septembe

r 2000. The Stat e’s due-di li gence b urden nev er arose. We need not r ev iew wh et he rt he St at e c ar r ied a b ur de n it did no t be ar . Be ca us e t he co ur t did no t err as asserted, t he er ro r a sser t ed c anno t for m the ba sis o f a du e- pr oc ess vio latio n. W e ov er ru l e b oth poi n ts of e rror . We affirm the re voc at ion o f Beck for d’s p ro bat ion.

Davi d Puryear, Justice Bef ore Justices K

idd, B. A . Smi

th and Pury

ear Af fi rmed File d: Jul

y 26, 2001 Do No t Publis

h