James J. Ellison v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 144th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

Nos. 04-99-00648-CR & 04-99-00649-CR
James J. ELLISON,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court Nos. 98-CR-1269 & 98-CR-1839W
Honorable Mark R. Luitjen, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Alma L. L pez, Justice

Sitting: Tom Rickhoff, Justice

Alma L. L pez, Justice

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 19, 2000

AFFIRMED

The appellant, James J. Ellison, pled guilty to committing the offenses of possession of a controlled substance in Cause No. 98-CR-1839W,(1) and resisting arrest and search with an attempt to use a deadly weapon in Cause No. 98-CR-1269.(2) Pursuant to two plea bargain agreements, Ellison was placed on probation for five and six years respectively. The State subsequently moved to revoke Ellison's probation. At a hearing on the motions to revoke, Ellison pled "true" to violating the conditions of his probation by illegally using cocaine and marijuana. The trial judge revoked Ellison's probation, and sentenced him to serve two years confinement in the state jail with a $1,000 fine in Cause No. 98-CR-1269, and six years confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division in Cause No. 98-CR-1839W.

On appeal, Ellison complains that the revocation of his probation violated his due process rights because he received no notice of the conditions of his probation. Specifically, Ellison contends that the record does not indicate that he knew with certainty what the conditions of his probation were before the alleged violation occurred. Ellison claims that although he signed both the original and amended conditions of probation, the record does not show that Ellison was served with a copy of the conditions of probation because there is no date recited as to when he received the conditions or amended conditions. The statute requires the clerk of the court to furnish a copy of such terms and conditions and note the date of delivery of such copy on the docket. See Bush v. State, 506 S.W.2d 603, 605 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974).

Despite the complaint, Ellison never objected to the alleged notice defect. As a general rule, to preserve a complaint for appellate review, a party must present to the trial court a timely request, objection or motion, stating the specific grounds for the ruling he desires the court to make if the specific grounds are not apparent from the context and obtain a ruling. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1(a); Lanum v. State, 952 S.W.2d 36, 39 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1997, no writ). A defendant cannot complain for the first time on appeal that he has not been furnished with a copy of the terms and conditions of probation. See Bush, 506 S.W.2d at 606. Some errors of a constitutional magnitude, such as alleged denials of due process, are waived absent a timely objection in the trial court. See Rogers v. State, 640 S.W.2d 248, 263-65 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (op. on reh'g); Hawkins v. State, 964 S.W.2d 767, 769-70 (Tex. App.--Beaumont 1998, pet. ref'd). In the instant case, Ellison has not preserved his error for review.

In addition, Ellison pled "true" to the allegations in the motion to revoke. A plea of true alone is sufficient to sustain a revocation of probation. See Jiminez v. State, 552 S.W.2d 469, 474 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977).

Accordingly, we overrule Ellison's issue on appeal and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Alma L. L pez, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH

1. The judgment in Cause No. 98-CR-1839W is the subject of the appeal in Cause No. 99-00649-CR.

2. The judgment in Cause No. 98-CR-1269 is the subject of the appeal in Cause No. 99-00648-CR.