Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:The defendant was convicted of witness tampering and retaliation, and placed on five years community supervision (probation) for each count in 1996. The state moved to revoke in each case on Dec. 8, 1998. Four days earlier, before the motions were file-marked by the clerk, the trial court issued a warrant in each case for the defendant’s arrest. The defendant was arrested on May 21, 2001, 29 months after the warrants issued, and two months before the expiration of her community supervision period. Four weeks after her supervision period ended, on Aug. 15, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the revocation proceedings on the ground that the state failed to exercise due diligence in arresting her. The trial court revoked the defendant’s community supervision on Aug. 30, and she was sentenced to five year on the retaliation count, and one year on the witness tampering count. On appeal, the defendant again argued the state failed to exercise due diligence in apprehending her, and the court of appeals agreed. The state petitioned for discretionary review. HOLDING:Reversed. The court notes that Peacock v. State, 77 S.W.3d 285 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002), upheld a due diligence defense, even in the absence of explicit statutory authority, because there was not express statutory authority for continuing jurisdiction of a trial court in a probation revocation, either. Peacock arose in the context of the court continuing its jurisdiction after the community supervision ended. In this case, the defendant was apprehended within the community supervision period. “While the revocation statute is silent about how to deal with someone who is arrested outside the community supervision period, the revocation statute plainly authorizes an arrest”at any time’ within the period of supervision.” Consequently, the court holds that there is no due diligence requirement when a defendant is arrested within the community supervision period. OPINION:Keller, P.J.; Price, Womack, Keasler, Hervey, Holcomb and Cochran, JJ., join. Johnson, J., concurred. Meyers, J., did not participate.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.