Court Opinion

ID: 9818611
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 05:59:09.948618+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:17:09.128792
License: Public Domain

LEE ANN DAUPHINOT, Justice,
dissenting.
I agree with the majority’s concern that the trial court again, as in Donovan v. State,1 denied Appellant due process by modifying the conditions of his community supervision for a non-sex offense to add sex-offender conditions without a hearing, without him being represented by counsel, and without advising him of his right to be represented by counsel. How does a defendant know he has a right, much less a duty, to object to conditions of community supervision when no one tells him of that right and the amendments are presented to him by a community supervision officer as a fait accompli, not after a hearing in open court and not even in open court with no hearing?
And I cannot agree with the majority’s statement that we are precluded from considering Appellant’s issues on the merits because he could not figure out the legal obstacle course for protecting his due process rights. For these reasons, and for the reasons set out in my dissent in Donovan,2 I must respectfully dissent.

. — S.W.3d —, —-—, 2012 WL 3030562, slip op. at 1-12 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2012, no pet. h.) (Dauphinot, J., dissenting), available at http://www.2ndcoa. courts.state.tx.us/htmlopinions.asp (handed down same day as this opinion).

. See id.