Court Opinion

ID: 9763810
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:56:14.235078+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:49.751723
License: Public Domain

ODOM, Judge
(dissenting).
The majority holds that the “findings are not sufficient to inform a probationer or this court as to which violations of probation were found by the trial court.”
The record reflects that the trial court conducted a hearing on the second amended motion to revoke probation which included the following:
“Violation of condition number 5: Defendant failed to report in person, by mail, or by telephone, to the Adult Probation Office for the months of July August, September, October, November, and December, 1970, and January, 1971.”
The testimony of Harry Whitehill, an adult probation officer for Bexar County, shows that the appellant did not report in person, by mail or by telephone during “August, September, October, November, December of 1970 and January 1971,” and “for the most of July (1970).”
The appellant did not testify nor offer witnesses in her behalf. The record is clear and the evidence is undisputed that the aforesaid condition was violated.
At the conclusion of the hearing the appellant requested the court to specify upon which grounds the probation was revoked. The trial judge declined to announce orally his findings and conclusions; however, he entered a written “Order Revoking Probation” wherein it is stated, in part, “ . . .it further appearing that the evidence sustained the violations alleged of conditions of Paragraphs Nos. 3, 5, and 14, in the Motion to Revoke Probation, the same being violations of the conditions of probation.” I submit that, in light of the record herein, such “Order Revoking Probation” is sufficient compliance with appellant's request.
I would hold that no abuse of discretion has been shown, and affirm this case.
I dissent.