Court Opinion

ID: 9778816
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:21:37.835277+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:13.391111
License: Public Domain

DAVIDSON, Judge
(concurring).
The sole question presented by this appeal is the validity of the order revoking the probation.
We have consistently held that upon an appeal from such an order the review by this court is limited to that question. Lynch v. State, 159 Tex. Cr. R. 267, 263 S.W. 2d 158; Bills v. State, 258 S.W. 2d 804; Dunn v. State, 159 Tex. Cr. R. 520, 265 S.W. 2d 589; Gossett v. State, 162 Tex. Cr. R. 52, 282 S.W. 2d 59; and McMillan v. State 166 Tex. Cr. R. 15, 310 S.W. 2d 116.
The question as to the validity of the parole and probation laws is therefore not before us for determination. We ought not to here assume jurisdiction in such matters for the sole and only purpose of expressing our views hereon.
Moreover, as the probation has been revoked here, this appellant is not now under probation and is not bound under any of the provisions thereof.
Obviously, appellant has no right to now attack the probation and parole laws, and his attack thereon is entirely unjustified.
It will be time enough to pass upon the validity of the parole and probation laws when that question is properly before us for determination.
Under the prior decisions of a majority of this court, the trial judge was authorized to revoke the probation here. His order in so doing should be affirmed.
To that extent I agree to the affirmance of this case.