Case Name: Cipriano Flores v. State
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1959-11-25
Citations: 169 Tex. Crim. 2
Docket Number: No. 31,100
Parties: Cipriano Flores v. State
Judges: DAVIDSON, Judge, dissented
Reporter: Texas Criminal Reports
Volume: 169
Pages: 2–5

Head Matter:
Cipriano Flores v. State
No. 31,100.
November 25, 1959
Motion for Rehearing Overruled January 27, 1960
DAVIDSON, Judge, dissented
Neal Dancer, Corpus Christi, for appellant.
Leon Douglas, State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

Opinion:
WOODLEY, Judge
Appellant on Januay 29, 1958, pleaded guilty to the offense of burglary and was sentenced to a term of not less than 2 years nor more than 7 years in the penitentiary. The execution of sentence was suspended and probation granted, one condition being that appellant "Commit no offense against the laws of this or any other state or the United States."
On March 26, 1959, the district attorney filed motion to revoke probation, alleging that appellant had violated this condition of his probation and alleging that on March 24, 1959, appellant had been arrested for burglary of the Roy Miller High School Band Room and that a complaint had been filed on March 25, 1959, for said offense.
Upon order of the court appellant was taken into custody and on May 4, 1959, and after hearing the evidence adduced order was entered revoking probation. From such order this appeal is prosecuted.
We are in accord with appellant's contention that the arrest and filing of a complaint against a probationer would not alone authorize revocation of probation conditioned that he "commit no offense against the laws of this or any other state or the United States."
We do not agree, however, that the revocation of appellant's probation rests upon the mere accusation and arrest. The evidence adduced at the hearing showed that appellant was arrested, charged by complaint and later indicted for burglary of the Roy Miller High School Band Room. However, the evidence was sufficient to sustain a finding by the trial judge that appellant committed the burglary and confessed his guilt.
The finding of the trial judge that appellant "has violated the terms and conditions of such probation to wit: (A) Commit no offense against the laws of the State or any other State of the United States" finds support in the evidence adduced at the hearing.
There is no showing that the trial judge abused his discretion in revoking the probation previously granted upon such condition.
The judgment is affirmed.