Tesa Ballard v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 13th District Court of Navarro County
Annotate this CaseIN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-01-323-CR
No. 10-01-324-CR
TESA BALLARD,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 13th District Court
Navarro County, Texas
Trial Court Nos. 25,971 & 25,972
DISSENTING OPINION
What we do today is illogical. The effect of today s extension of Peacock is that due diligence is a defense even if the motion to revoke/adjudicate, the issuance of the capias, incarceration, and hearing all occur during the period of supervision. See Peacock v. State, 77 S.W.3d 285 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Due diligence should only be an issue if the defendant is not incarcerated before the community supervision has expired. Ballard was incarcerated before her community supervision expired. I respectfully dissent.
TOM GRAY
Justice
Dissenting opinion delivered and filed August 28, 2002
Publish
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.