Truitt Secoy Layne v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 297th District Court of Tarrant County

IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-99-187-CR

TRUITT SECOY LAYNE,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 297th District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court # 0558367D

O P I N I O N

Appellant Layne appeals from a judgment of the trial court revoking his probation and sentencing him to five years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Institutional Division.

In 1995, appellant pled guilty to delivery of less than 28 grams of cocaine, and was assessed five years probation. The trial court ordered appellant to comply with various conditions of probation including reporting monthly to the Tarrant County Supervision and Corrections Department.

On February 23, 1999, the State filed its First Amended Petition for Revocation of Probated Sentence alleging that appellant had violated his condition to report monthly by failing to report in the months of December 1995; June, July, August and September 1996; June August, October, November and December 1998; and January, February and March 1999. Appellant pled true. Judgment was entered revoking probation and sentencing appellant to five years in prison.

Appellant appeals on one point of error.

The trial court erred by failing to include in the judgment a written statement as to the evidence relied upon by the court as fact finder.

The United States Supreme Court has enunciated the minimum requirements of due process that must be observed in probation revocation hearings. See Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1992). These requirements include: (1) written notice of the claimed violations of probation; (2) disclosure to the probationer of the evidence against him; (3) the opportunity to be heard in person, and by counsel, and to present witnesses; (4) the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses; (5) a neutral and detached hearing body; and (6) a written statement by the factfinder as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for revoking probation. Morrissey, p. 487; Ruedas v. State, 586 S.W.2d 520, 523 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979).

Appellant contends that the trial court failed to meet the sixth or written statement requirement above.

To the contrary, the judgment revoking probation includes a box entitled Paragraph Violated and Grounds for Revocation, which states:

PARAGRAPH ONE - DEFENDANT FAILED TO REPORT TO THE COMMUNITY SUPERVISION AND CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT OF TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS.

as set out in State s First Amended Petition to revoke probation.

This statement is sufficient to satisfy the sixth requirement under Morrissey. See Thompson v. State, 981 S.W.2d 325 (Tex. App. Houston [14th] 1998; rev d on other grounds 9 S.W.3d 808.

Appellant s point of error is overruled.

The judgment is affirmed.

FRANK G. McDONALD

Chief Justice (Retired)

Before Chief Justice Davis,

Justice Vance, and

Chief Justice McDonald (Retired)

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed June 7, 2000

Do not publish