holding that probation officer=s five-month delay in reporting appellant=s violation did not preclude its use as a basis for revocation
How later courts described this case
- holding that probation officer=s five-month delay in reporting appellant=s violation did not preclude its use as a basis for revocation
- both witnesses previously used cocaine extensively
- narcotics officer’s identification testimony sufficient
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DAVIDSON, Judge,
(dissenting).
This appellant’s parole was revoked by reason of his violation of the terms and conditions thereof by violating the laws of this state.
*574 The trial judge found appellant guilty of those violations and, upon that finding, revoked the parole and ordered him to the penitentiary, without which adjudication the probation would yet be in force.
So this man goes to the penitentiary not because he has been lawfully indicted, tried, and found guilty of violating the laws of this state but because he has been judicially tried and by judicial decree convicted of such violations, all without the semblance of an indictment and trial by jury.
I have expressed myself upon the subject of revoking parole without according a trial by jury. Leija v. State, 167 Texas Cr. Rep. 300 , 320 S.W. 2d 3 ; Gossett v. State, 162 Texas Cr. Rep. 52 , 282 S.W. 2d 59 .
I dissent to the affirmance of this case.