Court Opinion

ID: 9634659
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:19:20.97811+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:07.523641
License: Public Domain

BURGESS, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. However I review the record slightly different than the majority. The record reflects capias issued August 16, 1999, and Beaty was arrested October 26, 2000, constituting a delay of fourteen months. At the hearing, the State presented evidence of due diligence through the testimony of Joe Sewell, senior probation officer for San Jacinto County, and Sheriff Lacy Rogers of San Jacinto County.
Sewell testified the address he had for Beaty was P.O. Box 526, Goodrich, Texas, and when necessary he contacted Beaty through the mail. After August 12, 1999, no letters were sent to Beaty. Sewell testified he did not attempt to contact Beaty because his daughter said he left the county and “[i]t wasn’t any use.” Sewell admitted that from time to time Beaty worked outside the county. Sewell did not call any family member and made no attempt to contact Beaty after August 10, 1999. According to Sewell, Beaty’s daughter did not know where he was and therefore he had no way to contact Beaty.
Sheriff Rogers of San Jacinto County testified the capias was entered into TCIC. After that, on two occasions when Sheriff Rogers was in the neighborhood, he asked Beaty’s sons, who live in Shepherd, “if they saw him.” They said they had not. Sheriff Rogers did not ask the boys if they knew how to contact Beaty. Sheriff Rogers also asked a neighbor of the boys to let him know if she saw Beaty. Sheriff Rogers’ file reflected Beaty’s driver’s license was run in September of 1999. No check was made of social security records to determine if Beaty was working under a social security number and no check was made of the probation files to determine if there were any acquaintances that might be contacted.
The burden was on the State to show due diligence. See Harris v. State, 843 S.W.2d 34, 35 (Tex.Crim.App.1992). No *610attempt was ever made to contact Beaty through his mailing address and no one ever went to his home. Beaty was employed as a millwright with Union 232. The record does not reflect any queries were ever made to the Union. Under this record, the trial court’s determination that the State exercised due diligence was erroneous.
The majority, when they state; “In each of the cases cited above, the defendant was not in hiding” infers Beaty was in fact hiding; yet there is absolutely no evidence of that fact. Furthermore, they must resort to the sentence: “The tenor of the State’s explanation is that even though attempts had been made to locate Beaty3, he was avoiding apprehension.” Once again, there is absolutely no evidence that Beaty was avoiding apprehension. Under the majority’s logic, once a probationer fails to report; then that is evidence of “hiding” and “avoiding apprehension” and this somehow lessens the state’s burden to show diligence in attempting to apprehend the probationer. This is not the law, nor should it be.
I would, in accordance with Brecheisen v. State, 4 S.W.3d 761, 764-65 (Tex.Crim.App.1999), reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case with directions to dismiss the motion to revoke community supervision.

. The above cited evidence reveals these attempts were minimal, at best.