Court Opinion

ID: 9773091
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:36:33.382975+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:50.015723
License: Public Domain

OPINION
ROBERTS, Judge.
The appellant was on probation after being found guilty of burglary. The conditions of his probation required that he commit no offense against the laws of this state. The State alleged that, while on probation, the appellant committed the offenses of aggravated robbery and delivery *874of a controlled substance, methamphetamine. As proof, the trial judge took notice of the evidence which he heard while he was presiding over the appellant’s trials for those offenses. Finding that the allegations were true, the trial court revoked probation and imposed the sentence of confinement for a term of two to five years. From that action this appeal is taken.1
The only ground of error on appeal is that the evidence was insufficient. It is sufficient evidence, to support a probation revocation, that the judge took notice of the evidence that was introduced at a probationer’s trial before the same judge. Barrientez v. State, 500 S.W.2d 474 (Tex.Cr. App.1973). The appellate records of those trials are before us for review; see Bradley v. State, 564 S.W.2d 727, 732 (Tex.Cr.App.1978).
The appellant did not object below to the judge’s taking judicial notice. His complaints about the propriety of such judicial notice, which are discussed in the dissenting opinion, were raised for the first time on appeal. They come too late and their merits are not before us.
No contention has been made at the hearing or on appeal that the appellant was denied assistance of counsel.
The evidence was sufficient. The judgment is affirmed.

. This was a panel submission which was referred to an en banc court.