Court Opinion

ID: 9643651
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:36:28.423269+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:02.112685
License: Public Domain

ON appellant’s motion for rehearing.
WOODLEY, Judge.
Appellant urges that he was . deprived of his constitutional rights because he was not given reasonable notice of the grounds of, and opportunity to prepare an adequate defense to, the state’s motion for revocation of probation.
The record shows that the state offered in evidence the state’s motion filed June 6, 1952, seeking revocation of appellant’s probation. Also the warrant of arrest issued on the same *28day and the return showing the arrest of appellant on August 28, 1952.
Prior to the introduction of this testimony appellant moved to dismiss the proceeding “based upon the written motion of the District Attorney” upon the ground that the motion did not allege that appellant had violated any law or other ground upon which the probation should be revoked. This motion was properly overruled.
No objection appears to have been offered to the introduction of the state’s motion to revoke probation, the warrant and return thereon, or the judgment and sentence upon the conviction for cattle theft. The only objection offered to the order granting probation was that referred to in our original opinion.
And it was not until the witness Stanley was being interrogated that appellant “objected to any other testimony until such time as the defendant and his counsel will be ready to read and properly present the reply to the application.”
We do not view the exception to the overruling of such objection as one relating to the admission or exclusion of evidence which may be reserved in the Q & A statement of facts, but rather a complaint on the part of appellant of his failure to obtain a postponement or delay of the proceeding.
In the absence of a bill of exception presenting the question of the court’s failure to grant such delay appellant waived the question and it is not presented for our review. Appellant was represented by counsel at the hearing and the record does not disclose when he was employed. Nor is it shown that counsel was prevented from inspecting the motion filed June 6th, or that he did not know the. particulars of the state’s pleading. These are matters which should be shown by bill of exception.
We remain convinced that the appeal was properly disposed of on original submission.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.