Terry Ray Bender v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 47th District Court of Randall County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 07-03-0235-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT AMARILLO PANEL D JUNE 7, 2005 ______________________________ TERRY RAY BENDER, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee _________________________________ FROM THE 47TH DISTRICT COURT OF RANDALL COUNTY; NO. 7499-A; HON. HAL MINER, PRESIDING _______________________________ Memorandum Opinion _______________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ. Terry Ray Bender (appellant) appeals from an order revoking his probation. His two issues concern the authority of the trial court to enter the order after his probationary period expired and the court formally discharged him from probation. We affirm the order of revocation. As for the matter of revoking probation after the probationary period expired, authority holds that a trial court may do so if two conditions are met. They consist of the State moving to revoke and obtaining the issuance of a warrant or capias before the period s end. Ex parte Donaldson, 86 S.W.2d 231, 233 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). At bar, it is undisputed that the motion to revoke was filed and a capias was issued before September 25, 2002, the date on which appellant s community supervision was to lapse. The conditions of Donaldson having been satisfied, the trial court had jurisdiction to rule on the motion after September 25, 2002. Thus, this issue is overruled. As to the allegation that the trial court lacked authority to rescind a prior order discharging appellant from probation and, thereafter, grant a timely motion to revoke, we find the argument insufficiently briefed.1 In short, appellant cited neither direct nor analogous authority to support his contention.2 Furthermore, when an appellant inadequately briefs an issue, the reviewing court has the authority to overrule it. See Rhoades v. State, 934 S.W.2d 113, 119 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (overruling the point due to inadequate briefing). Moreover, failing to cite either direct or analogous authority in support of a contention is an example of inadequate briefing. See e.g., id. Given that lack of citation by appellant in support of this particular contention, we overrule it as well. Accordingly, the judgment revoking appellant s community supervision is affirmed.3 Per Curiam Do not publish. 1 The trial court signed on November 5, 2002, an order discharging appellant from probation. How ever, an order vacating the Novem ber 5 th decree a nd a judgme nt revoking ap pellan t s com mu nity supervision were signe d on De cem ber 5, 2002, and M ay 14, 2003, respec tively. 2 We do not consider appellant s reference to Ex parte Donaldson, 86 S.W.2d 231 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) as e ither direct or analogous sup port for this particular issue . This is s o be cau se it did not purpo rt to address a situation wherein the court previously executed an order discharging the appellant from probation. No r doe s he argu e that Donaldson actually applies to the specific question before us. 3 W e make no comment on wh ether this issue may b e addressed via habeas corpus pu rsuant to article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. 2
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.
