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

3
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

4
 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.

1
 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.

2
 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
3
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
4
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.

5
 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
6
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.

7
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).

8
 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
9
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.

10
 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

11
 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.

12
 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
*********************************************************

13
 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.

14
 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]

15
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

16
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,

17
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

18
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]