Ricky Kenneth Smith, Sr. v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 13th District Court of Navarro County

Annotate this Case

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

 

No. 10-04-00202-CR

Ricky Kenneth Smith,

Appellant

v.

The State of Texas,

Appellee

 

 

From the 13th District Court

Navarro County, Texas

Trial Court No. 27248

MEMORANDUM Opinion

 

Ricky Kenneth Smith appeals from the revocation of his community supervision. He contends in his sole issue that the court s previous extension of the term of his community supervision without notice violated the federal constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws and rendered the subsequent revocation void. We disagree and will affirm the judgment.

Smith s argument centers on an amendment to the community supervision statute which eliminated the requirement that the trial court clerk must serve on the defendant a copy of any alterations or modifications to the terms and conditions of community supervision made by the trial court. See Act of May 29, 1989, 71st Leg., R.S., ch. 785, 4.17, 1989 Tex. Gen. Laws 3471, 3504, amended by Act of May 29, 1993, 73d Leg., R.S., ch. 900, 4.01, 1993 Tex. Gen. Laws 3586, 3725 (current version at Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, 11(a) (Vernon Supp. 2004 2005)).[1] However, the amendment which removed this requirement took effect on September 1, 1993. See Act of May 29, 1993, 73d Leg., R.S., ch. 900, 4.05, 1993 Tex. Gen. Laws at 3743.

Smith committed the underlying offense on January 19, 1999. Therefore, the former version of the statute does not apply. Accordingly, we overrule his sole issue and affirm the judgment.

FELIPE REYNA

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Vance, and

Justice Reyna

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed July 13, 2005

Do not publish

[CR25]

 

[1] There have been numerous amendments to article 42.12, 11(a) (and its predecessor 6(a)). However, the amendment altering the statutory language to which Smith refers occurred in 1993.

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.