Case Name: Danny HOSKINS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1967-12-06
Citations: 425 S.W.2d 825
Docket Number: No. 40787
Parties: Danny HOSKINS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 425
Pages: 825–830

Head Matter:
Danny HOSKINS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 40787.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Dec. 6, 1967.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 28, 1968.
Second Rehearing Denied April 10, 1968.
John R. Lee, Kermit, for appellant.
Don M. Nugent, Dist. Atty., Kermit, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
OPINION
BELCHER, Judge.
This is an appeal from an order revoking probation.
Upon his plea of guilty before the court on June 7, 1966, the appellant was found guilty of burglary of a coin operated machine and his punishment was assessed at a term of three years.
The Imposition of sentence was suspended and the appellant was placed on probation.
Among the eleven conditions of his probation was that he commit no offense against the laws of this state.
Following the granting of probation, the district attorney filed a motion and later an amended motion to revoke probation alleging that appellant had committed numerous violations of the laws of this state, listing and describing the acts constituting the violations.
On the hearing, evidence was introduced which supported the allegations of the amended motion to revoke.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the court entered its order finding that the appellant had violated certain named conditions of the order granting probation.
It is from the order revoking probation and the pronouncement of sentence that appellant prosecutes his appeal.
As grounds for reversal, the appellant contends that the trial court "erred in revoking Defendant's Probated Sentence for the reason that the Judgment of Conviction was found, determined and entered without the introduction of any evidence of Defendant's guilt and without affording Defendant the opportunity to be confronted by his accuser and/or accusers and the witnesses against him and is therefore illegal and invalid."
Further, the grounds relied upon by the appellant were not raised in the hearing on the state's motion to revoke probation.
While it alone does not authorize conviction when trial by jury is waived and a plea of guilty to a felony charge is entered before a trial judge, such plea constitutes an admission of guilt. Burks v. State, 145 Tex.Cr.R. 15, 165 S.W.2d 460. See Article 1.15, Vernon's Ann.C.C.P.
The judgment reflects that appellant's plea of guilty followed the reading of indictment ; that he was represented by counsel, waived trial by jury, was duly admonished by the court of the consequences of his plea and persisted in said plea of guilty. The judgment further recites that after hearing the evidence submitted, the court found the appellant guilty.
The record before us reflects that some evidence was heard on appellant's plea of guilty including appellant's own testimony. Appellant contends, however, that none of the evidence offered shows appellant's guilt.
We observe that the clerk's certificate shows that the record before us contains true and correct copies of all proceedings in this cause directed by counsel to be included in the transcript. It does not reflect that all proceedings had in the cause are included.
Be that as it may, the sufficiency of the evidence to support the allegations of the indictment may not be inquired into in these proceedings.
In an appeal from an order revoking probation, this court's review is limited to the question of whether an abuse of the trial court's discretion is shown. Chavez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 375 S.W.2d 729.
Some evidence having been introduced at his trial on a plea of guilty, appellant's contention that the court abused his discretion in revoking probation is overruled.
The judgment is affirmed.