Case Name: Nora E. BARKER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1967-01-18
Citations: 412 S.W.2d 652
Docket Number: No. 40018
Parties: Nora E. BARKER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 412
Pages: 652–655

Head Matter:
Nora E. BARKER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 40018.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Jan. 18, 1967.
Rehearing Denied March 1, 1967.
Second Rehearing Denied April 5, 1967.
No attorney for appellant.
Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
OPINION
WOODLEY, Presiding Judge.
This is an appeal from an order revoking probation in a misdemeanor case.
Upon her plea of guilty to the offense of obtaining groceries by the giving and drawing of a worthless check, appellant was on October 29, 1965, adjudged guilty and her punishment was assessed by the court at six months in jail. Her application for probation was granted and she was placed on probation for a period of two years, conditioned among other things that she commit no offense against the laws of the State of Texas and that she report to the Probation Officer as directed by him or his assistants.
On April 28, 1966, motion was filed by the Criminal District Attorney and the Adult Probation Officer alleging that appellant had violated such terms of her probation and warrant was issued.
After hearing to determine whether probation should be continued or revoked, judgment was rendered finding that appellant had viqlated the terms and conditions thereof, in that she failed to report to the Probation Officer as directed by him and his assistants, and that she committed an offense against the laws of Texas.
This appeal is from the judgment revoking probation upon such findings and the sentence pronounced ordering that appellant be confined in the county jail for three months.
The sole question to be decided by this Court is whether there is "a clear showing of abuse of discretion by the revoking court." Art. 42.13, Section 8(a) C.C.P. (formerly codified as Art. 784a Vernon's Ann. C.C.P.)
The court's findings, upon which he revoked appellant's probation but reduced the punishment from six months to three months, were predicated upon the following proof.
Appellant was directed to report to the probation officer between the first and tenth day of each month. She complied with this requirement until April 1966. The office of the probation officer was not open on Saturday, April 9th, or Sunday April 10th. The undisputed evidence shows that appellant reported on Monday, April 11th.
Appellant gave a check in the sum of $9.89 dated March 23, 1966, payable to Piggly Wiggly No. 3 Grocery Store, which she signed "Mrs. Leroy Whaley." The check was drawn on the Citizen's National Bank. The bank refused payment and returned the check to the grocery store with the notation "signature not authorized."
The presumption of intent to defraud arising under the statute (Art. 567b Vernon's Ann.P.C.) was not applicable because the required notice was not given.
The undisputed evidence was that appellant had married Leroy Whaley who had an account in the bank on which the check was drawn, and that there was on deposit in said account sufficient funds to cover the check, part of which was earned by appellant and in all of which she had a community interest.
The evidence further reflects that, though the bank had no notice thereof, appellant had been authorized by her husband to give a check for groceries and he was not contacted about the check being returned unpaid.
Under the record, we find that the trial court abused his discretion in revoking probation.
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.