# Gordon v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · January 10, 1979 · 575 S.W.2d 529

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9771823

## Case

- **Full name:** Robert GORDON, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** January 10, 1979
- **Citations:** 575 S.W.2d 529
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing by Douglas
- **Judges:** Vollers, Douglas, Roberts, Phillips, Vol-Lers, Clinton
- **Cited by:** 54 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9771823

## Opinion text

OPINION ON STATE’S MOTION FOR REHEARING
DOUGLAS, Judge.
After the Court, under its rules, ordered a rehearing, the State filed a motion *535 for rehearing. The rehearing is granted, and that part of the original opinion declaring the cumulation order invalid and reforming the sentence is set aside and the judgments including the cumulation orders are now affirmed.
The issue is: Does a trial judge have power to cumulate sentences after revoking probation in a felony case?
The question was answered in Spencer v. State, 503 S.W.2d 557 (Tex.Cr.App.1974), where this Court wrote: “Since as in the instant case the sentence was imposed for the first time following appellant’s revocation, the court was free to cumulate the sentence with prior outstanding sentences.” In the present ease the sentence was imposed after the revocation of probation.
It makes no difference that Article 42.12, V.A.C.C.P., does not provide for the cumulation of sentences because Article 42.-08, V.A.C.C.P., provides for their cumulation.
The cumulation of sentences has been approved by this Court for eighty-two years. See Ex parte Crawford, 36 Tex.Cr.R. 180 , 36 S.W. 92 (1896); Ex parte March, 423 S.W.2d 916 (Tex.Cr.App.1968); and Ex parte Davis, 542 S.W.2d 117 (Tex.Cr.App.1976). The opinion on original submission does not give sufficient reasons to change the rule and nullify Article 42.12, supra.
For the above reasons, both sentences as originally pronounced are affirmed.
ROBERTS and PHILLIPS, JJ., dissent.
CLINTON, J., not participating.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9771823. Public record. Not legal advice.