Tiffany Lynn Patrick v. State

NO. 12-07-00137-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT TYLER, TEXAS TIFFANY LYNN PATRICK, § APPEAL FROM THE THIRD APPELLANT V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE § ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS MEMORANDUM OPINION Tiffany Lynn Patrick appeals from her conviction for burglary of a habitation for which she received an eighteen year sentence of imprisonment. In her sole issue, she asserts the trial court erred in not inquiring as to whether she knew her rights. We affirm. Background Appellant pleaded guilty to burglary of a habitation. The trial court placed her on deferred adjudication probation for a period of ten years pursuant to a plea bargain agreement. A few months later, because of multiple violations of the conditions of her probation, the State moved to proceed with adjudication of guilt and sentencing. Appellant testified at the hearing, pleading true to the allegations in the State’s motion. The trial court granted the motion to adjudicate, finding Appellant guilty of the offense of burglary of a habitation. The court sentenced Appellant to eighteen years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, to be served following the completion of sentences she is currently serving for convictions in Angelina County. Fair Trial In her sole issue, Appellant asserts the trial court denied her the right to a fair trial by assuming she waived her rights without inquiring whether she was aware of those rights and whether she wanted to waive them. Citing Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 1.14, she contends that to allow the waiver of rights, the court must find that waiver to be freely and voluntarily given. Appellant asserts that the trial court determined that she waived her right to remain silent, to have a hearing, to bring witnesses on her behalf, and to cross examine the State’s witnesses. Further, she argues the court must find that she was aware of the consequences of her pleas of true and that the court could find the allegations true, and that she knew the range of punishment, including the possibility of stacking sentences. Appellant’s arguments lack clarity. To the extent her arguments pertain to the trial court’s determination to proceed with an adjudication of guilt, we are precluded by statute from addressing them. See Russell v. State, 702 S.W.2d 617, 618 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985).1 Article 1.14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the defendant in a criminal prosecution may waive rights secured her by law. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.14 (Vernon 2005). However, an adjudication hearing is treated the same as a revocation of probation. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 5(b). A probation revocation hearing is not a criminal prosecution; it is in the nature of an administrative proceeding in which the trial court sits in its capacity as supervisor of the probationer. See Cross v. State, 586 S.W.2d 478, 481 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979); Davenport v. State, 574 S.W.2d 73, 75 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Therefore, Article 1.14 does not apply here. See Carrizales v. State, 737 S.W.2d 116, 117 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.). Furthermore, many of the rights Appellant specifically named in her argument are those covered by Article 1.05, which by its terms applies to criminal prosecutions, not probation revocation hearings. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 1.05 (Vernon 2005). The remainder of the inquiries Appellant contends the trial court should have made originate in Article 26.13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 26.13 (Vernon Supp. 2007). The legislature has not required the court to admonish the defendant pursuant to Article 26.13 in the context of a revocation proceeding. See Gutierrez v. State, 108 S.W.3d 304, 309 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). Appellant has shown no trial court error. We overrule her sole issue. Disposition We affirm the trial court’s judgment. BRIAN HOYLE Justice Opinion delivered March 31, 2008. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J. (DO NOT PUBLISH) 1 Effective June 15, 2007, the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure no longer provides that no appeal may be taken from this determination. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2007). Appellant’s hearing was conducted prior to the effective date of the amendment.