Rahman, Fatima

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

NO. PD-0724-15

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS SITTING AT AUSTIN, TEXAS

FATIMAH RAHMAN, Petitioner,

VS.

THE STATE OF TEXAS Respondent

On Petition for Discretionary Review To the Court of Appeals Twelfth Supreme Judicial District Cause No. 12-14-00225-CR

PETITION SEEKING DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

James W. Huggler State Bar No. 00795437 100 E. Ferguson, Suite 805 Tyler, Texas 75702 July 15, 2015 Telephone: 903-593-2400 Facsimile: 903-593-3830 jhugglerlaw@sbcglobal.net

ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DESCRIPTION PAGE TABLE OF CONTENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i INDEX OF AUTHORITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

GROUNDS FOR REVIEW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 What is a Defendant’s right to due process of law in a revocation proceeding, or are those rights violated if a Motion to Revoke probation proceeds without a signature from a prosecutor?

What is a Defendant’s right to due course of law in a revocation proceeding, or are those rights violated if a Motion to Revoke probation proceeds without a signature from a prosecutor?

REASONS FOR GRANTING REVIEW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

STATEMENT OF FACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

A. Reasons for Granting Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 B. Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 C. Application to these facts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 D. Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

i PRAYER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

APPENDIX A - Opinion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

ii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. Art. ann. 1.052( c) (West 2014). . . . . . . . . . 9 Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 2.04 (West 2013). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 15.05 4 (West 2013). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12 §21(b) (West 2009). . . . . . . . . . . 8 TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §49.04 (West 2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 4 TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §49.09(b)(2) (West 2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 4

CASES Bradley v. State, 564 S.W.2d 727 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Brent v. State, 916 S.W.2d 34, 37 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, pet. ref’d). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Caddell v. State, 605 S.W.2d 275 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Davenport v. State, 574 S.W.2d 73 ((Tex. Crim. App. 1978). . . . . . . . . . 7 Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 786, 36 L.Ed. 2d 656, 93 S. Ct. 1756 (1973). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Garner v. State, 545 S.W.2d 178 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977). . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Lugaro v. State, 904 S.W.2d 842 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi 1995, no pet.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Rahman v. State, No. 12-14-00225-CR, Tex. App. – Tyler, May 13, 2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Passim Schackelford v. State, 516 S.W.3d 180 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974). . . . . . . . 9 Spruill v. State, 382 S.W.2d 842 (Tex. App. – Austin 1995, no pet.). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Staten v. State, 328 S.W.3d 901 (Tex. App. – Beaumont 2010, no pet.). 6 Whitson v. State, 429 S.W.3d 632 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). . . . . . . . . . . 8

RULES TEX. R. APP. P. ANN. 9.4 (West 2013). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 TEX. R. APP. P. ANN. 66.3(a) (West 2014). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 TEX. R. APP. P. ANN. 66.3(b) (West 2014). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 TEX. R. APP. P. ANN. 66.3(e) (West 2014). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

OTHER SOURCES Office of Court Administration, Annual Statistical Report for the Texas Judiciary, Fiscal Year 2014. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

PD-0724-15

FATIMA RAHMAN, § IN THE COURT OF PETITIONER § § VS. § CRIMINAL APPEALS § THE STATE OF TEXAS, § APPELLEE § AUSTIN, TEXAS

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS:

Now Comes Fatima Rahman, Petitioner and Defendant in the trial court, and respectfully submits this her Petition for Discretionary Review complaining of the ruling and opinion by the Court of Appeals for the Twelfth Supreme Judicial District, and would show the Court as follows:

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

In the event this Court grants this petition, Petitioner requests the Court to grant oral argument herein so that all matters may be clarified and any questions presented by the briefs of the parties may be addressed in a proper manner.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellant was indicted in Cause Number 114-1451-10 and charged with the felony offense of driving while intoxicated. I CR 21; see TEX. PENAL CODE ANN . §§49.04, 49.09(b)(2) (West 2009). A guilty plea with an agreement for a probated sentence was entered. I CR 7; I RR 15-162. The State filed an Application to Revoke Community Supervision. I CR 54-56. Ms. Rahman entered a plea of true to each allegation and after evidence and argument, the court revoked her probation and sentenced her to five years confinement. I CR 76-77; IV RR 34-35. Notice of appeal was timely filed. I CR 78. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s sentence in an unpublished opinion, and this petition follows. The Petition is timely filed on or before July 13, 2015.

1 References to the Clerk’s Record are designated “CR” with a roman numeral preceding “CR” indicating the correct volume and an arabic numeral following “CR” specifying the correct page in the record.

2 References to the Reporter’s Record are designated “RR” with a roman numeral preceding “RR” indicating the correct volume, and an arabic numeral following “RR” specifying the correct page.

STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Twelfth Court of Appeals issued an opinion in number 12-14-00225-CR on May 13, 2015. No motion for rehearing was filed. On June 12, 2015, a Motion to Extend Time to File Petition for Discretionary Review was filed. That Motion was granted and the time to file a petition for discretionary review was extended until July 13, 2015.

GROUND FOR REVIEW

What is a Defendant’s right to due process of law in a revocation proceeding, or are those rights violated if a Motion to Revoke probation proceeds without a signature from a prosecutor?

What is a Defendant’s right to due course of law in a revocation proceeding, or are those rights violated if a Motion to Revoke probation proceeds without a signature from a prosecutor?

REASONS FOR GRANTING REVIEW

The decision of the Court of Appeals conflicts with another court of appeals decision on the same issue. TEX. R. APP. P. ANN. 66.3(a) (West 2014).

The decision of the Court of Appeals decided an important question *4 of state or federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by the Court of Criminal Appeals. Tex. R. App. P. Ann. 66.3(b) (West 2014).

The decision of the Court of Appeals conflicts with an applicable decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals on an important question of state law. TEX. R. APP. PROC. ANN. 66.3( c)(West 2014).

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Fatima Rahman was indicted for the third degree felony offense of driving while intoxicated. I CR 3. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§49.04 and 49.09(b)(2)(West 2009). A plea agreement was reached and Ms. Rahman received a sentence of ten years probated for a period of seven years. I RR 11. A guilty plea was entered to the indictment and the two jurisdictional paragraphs. I RR 15-16. The court followed the plea agreement and sentenced Ms. Rahman accordingly. II RR 8; I CR 19-20, 21-24.

The State filed three different motions to revoke the probation. I CR32-34, 44-46. The first motion was dismissed and the probation was modified. I CR 37-38. The second motion was also dismissed. I CR 47. The third motion to revoke filed on July 9, 2012 included the following *5 allegations: (1) that Ms. Rahman was placed on probation; (2) that she used or consumed marijuana; (3) that she possessed marijuana; (4) and (5) that she failed to submit to urinalysis testing. I CR 54-56. Another application to revoke containing different allegations was also filed on July 8, 2014. I CR 60-62. This application alleged that Ms. Rahman (1) was placed on probation; (2) that she operated a motor vehicle while her driver’s license was suspended in Tarrant County; (3) that she operated a motor vehicle while her license was suspended in Hood County; and (4) that she failed to pay supervision fees. I CR 60-62.

Ms. Rahman entered a plea of true to identity, and all substantive paragraphs to the July 8, 2014 application. I CR 73; IV 17-19. We know it was the July 8, 2014 application because the trial court read each allegation prior to asking a plea. IV RR 17-19. Following evidence and argument of counsel, the trial court found each paragraph true, revoked her probation and sentenced her to five years confinement. IV RR 34-35. Further discussion of relevant facts is included below.

ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES

A. Reasons for Granting Review

While it is clear that a defendant is not entitled to the same level of due process or due course of law in revocation proceedings, no court has ever stated that a defendant does not have any right to due process or due course of law. Courts have stated that there are certain minimums in revocation proceedings. Those include: (1) written notice of the claimed violations of the terms of supervision; (2) the disclosure of evidence against him; (3) the opportunity to be heard and present witnesses and evidence; (4) a neutral and detached hearing body; (5) the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses; and (6) a written statement as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for revoking supervision. Staten v. State, 328 S.W.3d 901, 905 (Tex. App. – Beaumont, 2010, no pet.)(internal citations omitted).

This Court has stated that a probationer is entitled to the “rudiments of due process.” one of which is a written motion to revoke that fully informs him of the violation of a term of probation which he is alleged to have breached. Caddell v. State, 605 S.W.2d 275, 277 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). Surely one of those rudiments of due process is the *7 simple requirement that a motion to revoke probation be reviewed and signed by a prosecutor.

In fiscal year 2014, there were 61,338 motions to revoke filed in the State of Texas. Office of Court Administration, Annual Statistical Report for the Texas Judiciary, Fiscal Year 2014, p. 54-55.3 This Court has not reviewed the minimum due process requirements for revocation proceedings in some time. However, stating whether a prosecutor has to review and sign a motion to revoke should be a minimal due process requirement is an important issue which should be decided by this Court. Rahman No. 12-14-00225-CR at 4.

B. Analysis

Probation revocation proceedings are not criminal trials in the constitutional sense; rather, they are administrative in nature. Davenport v. State, 574 S.W.2d 73, 76 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Bradley v. State, 564 S.W.2d 727, 729 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). However, a person placed on probation does not lose all their rights. A probationer is entitled to a

3 Accessed at http://www.txcourts.gov/media/885306/Annual-Statistical-Report-FY -2014.pdf on July 13, 2015.

written motion to revoke that fully informs her of the violation of a term of probation which she is alleged to have breached. Garner v. State, 545 S.W.2d 178, 179 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977). A probationer is entitled to minimum requirements of due process which must be observed in revocation proceedings. Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 7869, 36 L. Ed. 2d 656, 93 S. Ct. 1756 (1973).

The State cannot file an application to revoke after the term of supervision has ended. Whitson v. State, 429 S.W.3d 632 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). A motion to revoke must give fair notice of the allegations. Spruill v. State, 382 S.W.3d 518, 520 (Tex. App. – Austin 2012, no pet). A defendant has the right to counsel at revocation proceedings. Lugaro v. State, 904 S.W.2d 842, 843-44 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi 1995, no pet). The State may amend a motion to revoke community supervision any time up to seven days before the date of the revocation hearing, after which time the motion may not be amended except for good cause shown, and in no event may the State amend the motion after the commencement of taking evidence at the hearing. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.12 §21(b) (West 2009).

C. Application to These Facts

There are two documents contained in the record seeking revocation of supervision. The first was filed on July 8, 2014 and contained four paragraphs. I CR 60-62. The second was filed on July 9, 2014 and contained five paragraphs. I CR 54-56. The trial court took a plea of true to each paragraph contained in the July 8, 2014 application. IV RR 17-19.

There are two problems with the trial court taking proceeding on the July 8, 2014 application. First, the July 8, 2014 application to revoke was superseded by the July 9, 2014 application to revoke. The second is that the pleading which was used was not signed by an attorney representing the State of Texas. I CR 62.

If a pleading is not signed, the court shall strike it unless it is signed promptly after the omission is called to the attention of the attorney or the defendant. TEX. CODE CRIM . PROC. ANN. art. 1.052( c) (West 2014). While that provision is contained in a section entitled “Signed Pleadings of Defendant”, it applies equally to pleadings signed by the State of Texas.

A criminal complaint must be signed and attested to by a prosecuting attorney. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 2.04 (West 2013). A defect in a complaint if undated is defective. Shackelford v. State, 516 *10 S.W.2d 180 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974). A complaint must also be signed. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 15.05 4 (West 2013); Brent v. State, 916 S.W.2d 34.37 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, pet. ref’d).

While Appellant does not claim that a motion to revoke probation is identical to a criminal complaint, it is certainly similar, especially in a due process or due course of law analysis. Mistakes can occur, but when those mistakes are of Constitutional magnitude, this Court should address them to prevent Constitutional error in the future.

E. Conclusion

A probation revocation has a lower burden of proof and lower minimums of due process. However, there is still a due process requirement and this Court should require that a motion to revoke be signed and reviewed by a prosecuting attorney prior to being acted upon by a trial court. Otherwise, as in this case, there is no indication that anyone except a non-attorney probation officer reviewed the facts of the allegations, or the language to revoke, and that offends our concept of due process.

CONCLUSION

Under all circumstances, the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s decision. This court should grant discretionary review, allow complete briefing, and, upon such review, reverse the Court of Appeals and remand the case to the Court of Appeals.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays the Court to grant discretionary review and, upon such review, to reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals; and for such other and further relief to which he may show himself justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ James Huggler James W. Huggler State Bar No. 00795437 100 E. Ferguson, Suite 805 Tyler, Texas 75702 Telephone: 903-593-2400 Facsimile: 903-593-3830 jhugglerlaw@sbcglobal.net ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Petition has been forwarded to Mike West, Smith County District Attorney’s Office, and on the State Prosecuting Attorney through the State of Texas Electronic Filing System on this the 13th day of July, 2015 at the addresses listed below

/s/ James Huggler James W. Huggler

Mike West Smith County District Attorney’s Office 100 N. Broadway, 4th Floor Tyler, Texas 75702

Lisa McMinn State Prosecuting Attorney PO Box 12405 Austin, Texas 78711

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I certify that this Petition complies with Tex. R. App. P. 9.4, specifically using 14 point Century font and contains 1, 912 words as counted by Corel WordPerfect version x6.

/s/ James Huggler James W. Huggler, Jr.

NO. PD-0724-15

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF TEXAS SITTING AT

AUSTIN, TEXAS

*********************************************************

FATIMA RAHMAN,

Petitioner

VS.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Respondent *********************************************************

On Petition for Discretionary Review To the Court of Appeals Twelfth Supreme Judicial District Cause No. 12-14-00225-CR

********************************************************* APPENDIX *********************************************************

FATIMA RAHMAN, APPELLANT v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

NO. 12-14-00225-CR

COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS, TWELFTH DISTRICT, TYLER

2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 4820

May 13, 2015, Opinion Delivered

NOTICE: PLEASE CONSULT THE which she was sentenced to imprisonment TEXAS RULES OF APPELLATE for five years. In three issues, Appellant PROCEDURE FOR CITATION OF argues that the trial court erred in UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. imposing attorney's fees and in proceeding on an unsigned application to PRIOR HISTORY: [*1] Appeal from revoke community supervision. We the 114th District Court of Smith County, affirm. Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. 114-1451-10). Judge Christi J. Kennedy. BACKGROUND Appellant was charged by indictment with felony driving while intoxicated. She COUNSEL: James Huggler, for pleaded "guilty" to the offense. The trial Appellant. court assessed an agreed sentence of imprisonment for ten years, suspended the Aaron Rediker, for State. sentence, and placed Appellant on community supervision for a term of JUDGES: Panel consisted of Worthen, seven years. C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J. Subsequently, the State filed an OPINION BY: BRIAN HOYLE application to revoke Appellant's community supervision alleging three OPINION violations of the terms. Appellant pleaded true to all three allegations. The trial court MEMORANDUM OPINION found the allegations to be true, revoked Appellant's community supervision, and Fatima Rahman appeals her conviction assessed her punishment at imprisonment for felony driving while intoxicated, for for five years.

This appeal followed. [*2] enable him to [*3] offset in part or in whole the costs of the legal services ATTORNEY'S FEES provided. See Johnson v. State, 405 S.W.3d 350, 354 (Tex. App.--Tyler 2013, In her first issue, Appellant argues that no pet.). If the record does not show that the trial court improperly assessed the defendant's financial circumstances attorney's fees when it placed her on materially changed, there is no basis for community supervision. the imposition of attorney's fees. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 26.04(p); Standard of Review and Applicable Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552, 553, 557 Law (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); Johnson, 405 The imposition of court costs upon a S.W.3d at 354. criminal defendant is a "nonpunitive recoupment of the costs of judicial Analysis resources expended in connection with Appellant argues that attorney's fees the trial of the case." Johnson v. State were improperly assessed against her 423 S.W.3d 385, 390 (Tex. Crim. App. when she was placed on community 2014). When the imposition of court costs supervision because she was found to be is challenged on appeal, we review the indigent. She contends that because the assessment of costs to determine if there record contains no evidence to support a is a basis for the costs, not to determine if finding that she is not indigent, the sufficient evidence to prove each cost was judgment and bill of costs should be offered at trial. Id. modified to delete the attorney's fees. She A trial court has the authority to assess further asserts that she has already paid attorney's fees against a criminal the attorney's fees, and she contends the defendant who received court-appointed clerk's office should be ordered to return counsel. TEX. CODE CRIM . PROC. ANN. art. the money to her. 26.05(g) (West Supp. 2014). But once a Appellant pleaded guilty and was criminal defendant has been determined placed on community supervision in to be indigent, he "is presumed to remain November 2010. The judgment of indigent for the remainder of the conviction assesses an amount of $694.00 proceedings unless a material change in in court costs. No bill of costs itemizing his financial circumstances occurs." TEX. these costs appears in the record. In July CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 26.04(p) 2014, after a hearing on the State's (West Supp. 2014). Before attorney's fees application to revoke, the trial court may be imposed, the trial court must make revoked App ella nt's co mmunit y a determination supported by some supervision. The judgment revoking factual basis in the record that the community supervision shows court costs defendant has the financial resources to of $0.00. A bill of costs dated July [*4]

30, 2014 appears in the record and lists In her second and third issues, court costs totaling $394.00. Attorney's Appellant argues that the trial court erred fees are not listed among these costs. The by revoking her community supervision record indicates that the trial court based on an unsigned application to determined Appellant was indigent revoke, violating her right to due process because it appointed counsel to represent and due course of law under the United her at the guilty plea hearing, at two States and Texas Constitutions. revocation hearings, and in this appeal. Nothing in the record shows that the Standard of Review and Applicable court costs assessed in the judgment of Law conviction included attorney's fees. We review a trial court's order Therefore, the record does not support revoking a defendant's placement on Appellant's argument that she was community supervision for an abuse of improperly assessed attorney's fees. discretion. Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d Consequently, her challenge is more 759, 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). The appropriately termed a challenge to the state's burden of proof in a revocation lack of a bill of costs itemizing the costs proceeding is by a preponderance of the named in the judgment of conviction. As evidence. Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, a general rule, issues related to the 874 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). conviction of a defendant placed on community supervision may be raised While a defendant at a revocation only in an appeal taken when community proceeding need not be afforded the full supervision is originally imposed. range of constitutional and statutory Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661 protections that are available in the trial (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). In other words, of a criminal case, a person on community such issues may not be raised in an appeal supervision is entitled to certain due filed after community supervision is process protections. Gagnon v. Scarpelli, revoked. Id. 411 U.S. 778, 781-82, 93 S. Ct. 1756, 1759-60, 36 L. Ed. 2d 656 (1973); The app rop riate ve hicle for Bradley v. State, 564 S.W.2d 727, 729-30 challenging the lack of a bill of costs (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Due process, in itemizing the costs named in the judgment connection with community supervision of conviction was in a direct appeal from revocation proceedings, entitles a that judgment. See Manuel, 994 S.W.2d at defendant to (1) written notice of the 661. However, that did not occur. claimed violations of the terms of the Therefore, [*5] we conclude that the community supervision order; (2) the issue was forfeited. Accordingly, we disclosure of the evidence against him; overrule Appellant's first issue. (3) the opportunity to be heard in person and to present [*6] witnesses and UNSIGNED APPLICATION TO REVOKE

documentary evidence; (4) a neutral and prosecutor. No mention [*7] of the lack detached hearing body; (5) the of a prosecutor's signature was made at opportunity to cross examine adverse the hearing on the application. witnesses, unless the hearing body In support of her argument, Appellant specifically finds good cause for not cites only authority that a complaint must allowing confrontation; and (6) a written be signed. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. statement by the fact finder as to the ANN. art. 15.05(4) (West 2005); Brent v. evidence relied on and the reasons for State, 916 S.W.2d 34, 37 (Tex. App.-- revoking community supervision. Staten Houston [1st] 1995, pet. ref'd). Appellant v. State, 328 S.W.3d 901, 905 (Tex. App.-- concedes that an application to revoke Beaumont 2010, no pet.). community supervision is not identical to In the context of community a criminal complaint, but she argues that supervision revocation proceedings, due it is similar enough that we should apply process entitles a defendant to a written the same analysis. We disagree. The motion to revoke that fully informs him of motion to revoke Appellant's community the alleged violation of the term of supervision was not required to meet the community supervision. Caddell v. State, particularities of an indictment, 605 S.W.2d 275, 277 (Tex. Crim. App. information, or complaint. See Staten, 1980). A trial court's authority to revoke 328 S.W.3d at 906. We conclude that community supervision is limited to the Appellant's rights to due process and due grounds alleged in the state's motion to course of law were not violated because revoke community supervision. Moore v. of the lack of a prosecutor's signature on State, 11 S.W.3d 495, 499 (Tex. App.-- the application to revoke. Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.). A Accordingly, we overrule Appellant's motion to revoke community supervision second and third issues. is not required to meet the particularities of an indictment, information, or DISPOSITION complaint because the motion is held to a less rigorous standard. Staten, 328 S.W.3d Having overruled Appellant's first, at 906. The state's motion to revoke need second, and third issues, we affirm the only fully and clearly set forth the basis trial court's judgment. on which the state seeks revocation so BRIAN HOYLE that the defendant and his counsel have Justice notice. Id. Opinion delivered May 13, 2015. Analysis JUDGMENT In this case, the State's application to revoke is signed by a community THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the supervision officer, but not by a appellate record and briefs filed herein,

and the same being considered, it is the things affirmed, and that this decision be opinion of this court that there was no certified to the court below for error in the judgment. observance. It [*8] is therefore ORDERED, Brian Hoyle, Justice. ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of the court below be in all

Envelope Details Print this page

Case # PD-0724-15 Case Information Location Court Of Criminal Appeals Date Filed 07/13/2015 03:57:48 PM Case Number PD-0724-15 Case Description Assigned to Judge Attorney James Huggler Firm Name Law Office of James Huggler Filed By James Huggler Filer Type Not Applicable Fees Convenience Fee $0.00 Total Court Case Fees $0.00 Total Court Filing Fees $0.00 Total Court Service Fees $0.00 Total Filing & Service Fees $0.00 Total Service Tax Fees $0.00 Total Provider Service Fees $0.00 Total Provider Tax Fees $0.00 Grand Total $0.00 Payment Account Name Office AMEX Transaction Amount $0.00 Transaction Response Transaction ID Order #

Petition for Discretionary Review Filing Type EFileAndServe Filing Code Petition for Discretionary Review Filing Description Petition for Discretionary Review Reference Number 3000709 Comments Status Rejected Fees Court Fee $0.00 Service Fee $0.00 Rejection Information Rejection Time Rejection Comment Reason 07/15/2015 The petition for discretionary review does not contain the identity of Judge, Parties Other 03:40:47 and Counsel [Rule 68.4(a)]. You have ten days to tender a corrected petition for

https://reviewer.efiletexas.gov/EnvelopeDetails.aspx?envelopeguid=eead1f55-b75d-43a6-ba98-b0dde7b0800d[7/15/2015 3:41:45 PM] Envelope Details

PM discretionary review. Documents Lead Document PDR.pdf [Original]

eService Details Name/Email Firm Service Type Status Served Date/Time Opened Smith County Michael West 07/13/2015 MWest@smith-county.com District Attorney's EServe Sent Yes 04:58:43 PM Office Lisa McMinn State Prosecuting 07/13/2015 EServe Sent Yes information@spa.texas.gov Attorney 05:28:37 PM

https://reviewer.efiletexas.gov/EnvelopeDetails.aspx?envelopeguid=eead1f55-b75d-43a6-ba98-b0dde7b0800d[7/15/2015 3:41:45 PM]