Case Name: Horace Lee HOOD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee
Court: Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1970-10-21
Citations: 458 S.W.2d 662
Docket Number: No. 43409
Parties: Horace Lee HOOD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 458
Pages: 662–664

Head Matter:
Horace Lee HOOD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.
No. 43409.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.
Oct. 21, 1970.
Rhett M. Plank, Canyon, for appellant.
Tom Curtis, Dist. Atty., and Hugh Russell, Asst. Dist. Atty., Amarillo, and Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

Opinion:
OPINION
DOUGLAS, Judge.
On February 1, 1968, appellant was convicted of the offense of attempting to pass a forged instrument and the punishment assessed was two years, probated. On December 22, 1969, the State filed a motion to revoke the order granting probation. A hearing was had on said motion resulting in the revocation of appellant's probation. Appellant has prosecuted this appeal of the revocation order.
Among the conditions of the appellant's probation was that he commit no offense against the laws of this or any other state or of the United States. In its motion to revoke, the State alleged that on or about the Sth day of October, 1969, appellant did unlawfully carry on and about his person, a pistol. The evidence showed that appellant was seen outside a nightclub by a police officer and another witness. It appeared that appellant took a pistol from his pocket and handed it to his brother. The court concluded from the evidence that appellant did have the pistol in his possession.
Appellant contends that since he was not convicted of the offense alleged in the motion his probation could not be revoked. It is his contention that the trial court may not, without a jury trial, summarily find that probationer violated the terms of his probation.
It is well settled that a proceeding to revoke probation is not a "trial" as the term is used by the Constitution in reference to criminal cases, and hence appellant is not entitled to a jury trial therein. Wilson v. State, 156 Tex.Cr.R. 228, 240 S.W.2d 774; Jones v. State, 159 Tex.Cr.R. 24, 261 S.W.2d 317, cert. denied 346 U.S. 836, 74 S.Ct. 53, 98 L.Ed. 358; Manning v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 412 S.W.2d 656. Furthermore, where a motion to revoke probation is filed alleging that the deferdant has committed an offense, he is not entitled to a jury trial on the issue of whether he is guilty of the offense alleged for revocation. Shelby v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 434 S.W.2d 871, and Jones v. State, supra.
From the evidence presented at the hearing, the court was authorized in revoking appellant's probation. See Gossett v. State, 162 Tex.Cr.R. 52, 282 S.W.2d 59.
There being no showing that the trial court abused its discretion, the judgment is affirmed.