Texas v. Robinson (original by judge newell)
Annotate this CaseAppellee Olin Robinson, and his wife, Floria were tried together for offenses arising out of a traffic stop. Deputy Bobby Doelitsch activated his overhead lights after he observed a vehicle fail to stop completely at a stop sign and fail to properly signal a turn. Floria was driving. The deputy observed that she did not stop, but continued for three and a half blocks before turning into her own driveway and finally stopping at the back of her house. Floria, ignoring the deputy’s request that she remain in the truck, exited the pickup, and tried to reach its bed. The deputy lowered the top of the bed cover on Floria’s hand to stop her. She then interfered with the deputy’s efforts to keep Appellee inside the truck. Deputy Doelitsch arrested Floria, which prompted Appellee to punch him. The couple were tried together. A jury found Floria guilty of evading arrest or detention with a vehicle and imposed punishment of two years’ confinement. For his part, Appellee was found guilty of third-degree felony assault on a public servant and received four years' imprisonment. Appellee began serving his sentence, and, that same day, filed a motion for continuing jurisdiction community supervision (“shock probation”). Thirty-seven days later, the trial court entered its order granting Appellee shock probation for four years. The State filed a notice of appeal forty-nine days after Appellee began serving his sentence. On its review of the State’s appeal, the court of appeals first recognized its jurisdiction to hear the appeal and then held that the trial court erred in granting Appellee’s motion for shock probation without holding a hearing. The Court of Criminal Appeals addressed the question of whether a court of appeals had subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the State's appeal of the trial court's grant of shock probation. If so, did the pendency of that State’s appeal deprive the trial court of subject-matter jurisdiction to consider a motion for shock probation after the mandate has issued on that appeal? The Court responded, yes and no: the State could appeal a grant of shock probation, but that appeal stays the proceedings in the trial court. Given the stay in the proceedings, the trial court’s order placing Appellee on shock probation is valid. The Court of Criminal Appeals therefore reversed the court of appeals and entered judgment affirming the shock probation order of the trial court.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.