IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-99-187-CR
TRUITT SECOY LAYNE,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 297th District Court
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court # 0558367D
O P I N I O N
Appellant Layne appeals from a judgment of the trial court revoking his probation and sentencing him to five years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Institutional Division.
In 1995, appellant pled guilty to delivery of less than 28 grams of cocaine, and was assessed five years probation. The trial court ordered appellant to comply with various conditions of probation including reporting monthly to the Tarrant County Supervision and Corrections Department.
On February 23, 1999, the State filed its First Amended Petition for Revocation of Probated Sentence alleging that appellant had violated his condition to report monthly by failing to report in the months of December 1995; June, July, August and September 1996; June August, October, November and December 1998; and January, February and March 1999. Appellant pled “true.” Judgment was entered revoking probation and sentencing appellant to five years in prison.
Appellant appeals on one point of error.
“The trial court erred by failing to include in the judgment a written statement as to the evidence relied upon by the court as fact finder.”
The United States Supreme Court has enunciated the “minimum requirements of due process “that must be observed in probation revocation hearings. See Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1992). These requirements include: (1) written notice of the claimed violations of probation; (2) disclosure to the probationer of the evidence against him; (3) the opportunity to be heard in person, and by counsel, and to present witnesses; (4) the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses; (5) a “neutral and detached” hearing body; and (6) a written statement by the factfinder as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for revoking probation. Morrissey, p. 487; Ruedas v. State, 586 S.W.2d 520, 523 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979).
Appellant contends that the trial court failed to meet the sixth or “written statement” requirement above.
To the contrary, the judgment revoking probation includes a box entitled “Paragraph Violated and Grounds for Revocation,” which states:
PARAGRAPH ONE - DEFENDANT FAILED TO REPORT TO THE COMMUNITY SUPERVISION AND CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT OF TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS.
as set out in State’s First Amended Petition to revoke probation.
This statement is sufficient to satisfy the sixth requirement under Morrissey. See Thompson v. State, 981 S.W.2d 325 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th] 1998; rev’d on other grounds 9 S.W.3d 808.
Appellant’s point of error is overruled.
The judgment is affirmed.
FRANK G. McDONALD
Chief Justice (Retired)
Before Chief Justice Davis,
Justice Vance, and
Chief Justice McDonald (Retired)
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed June 7, 2000
Do not publish
inated the possibility that the bent rods were caused by anything other than the operator's negligence.
(9)Except to contest the person responsible for the damage, Appellant offered no other explanation for the physical cause of the damage to the tractor's engine.
After reviewing the evidence and taking into account that the trial court was the judge of the credibility of the witnesses, we are of the opinion and hold that the trial court's finding that Appellant failed to overcome his presumption of negligence was legally and factually sufficient. We therefore respectfully overrule Appellant's second point of error.
By Appellant's third and final point of error he contends that he was entitled to attorney's fees as a matter of law. The trial court awarded Appellant $225.09 for parts installed in the tractor without awarding him attorney's fees.
Appellant claimed a lien against the tractor under Section 70.001 of the Texas Property Code. Until this appeal, Appellant's only claim to his attorney's fees was under this section which allows the trial court in its discretion to award attorney's fees to the "prevailing party." See Seureau v. Mudd (Houston 14th CA 1974) 515 S.W.2d 746, NRE. In any event, in the absence of formal findings of fact and conclusions of law, the trial court impliedly made the findings to support his decision. Roberson v. Robinson (Tex.1989) 768 S.W.2d 280. Appellant's third and final point of error is overruled.
Judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED
JOHN A JAMES, JR.
DO NOT PUBLISH Justice (Retired)
[Participating: Chief Justice Thomas, Justice Means, and Justice James (Retired)]
(WITHDRAWN 12-20-90)