|
|
NUMBER 13-00-266-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI
EARL WAYNE SAENZ, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 156th District Court
of Live Oak County, Texas.
O P I N I O N
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Yañez and Kennedy[1]
Opinion by Justice Kennedy
Appellant=s brief states that the appellant pleaded true to the allegations in the State=s motion to revoke his probation, the probation was revoked and that he was sentenced to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice B Institutional Division. The only statement in the brief that could be construed as a point of error is: AThere was no evidence that appellant understood the conditions of his probation.@ The entire argument in support of the claimed error is:
At a revocation hearing the trial judge is not accorded absolute discretion in the decision to revoke.
It has long been the established law of this state that a trial court may revoke probation only if the state has proven every element of the violation offense by a preponderance of the evidence.
There was no evidence that appellant understood the conditions of his probation. Therefore, appellant cannot be intentionally charged with breaking his probation, when there is no evidence that he understood the conditions of this probation.
Two cases are cited in support of appellant=s brief. First, he cites Battle v. State, 571 S.W.2d 20, 21 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) which holds that a trial judge is not accorded absolute discretion in the decision to revoke. He also cites DeGay v. State, 741 S.W.2d 445 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) which purports to hold that a trial court may revoke only if the state proves every element of the violation offense.
Appellant=s prayer states:
Appellant prays that the court of appeals make the proper disposition of the points of error raised in this brief.
Appellant further prays that the court of appeals use its discretion in reforming, remanding or reversing the trial court=s order.
The case is inadequately briefed.[2] When appellant fails to discuss the evidence supporting his claim, he presents nothing for review. Rocha v. State, 16
S.W.3d 1, 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). However, we have studied the record and find nothing that calls for a re-brief of this case. We overrule appellant=s point of error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
NOAH KENNEDY,
Justice
Do not publish.
Tex. R. App. P. 47.3(b).
Opinion delivered and filed
this 25th day of April, 2002.
[1]Retired Justice Noah Kennedy assigned to this Court by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas pursuant to Tex. Gov=t Code Ann. ' 74.003 (Vernon 1988).
[2]The brief is deficient in many respects. See Tex. R. App. Proc. ' 38.1(c)(d)(f) (g)(h)(i).