Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:On April 22, 2005, Glen Ray Bigham pleaded guilty to possessing less than one gram of cocaine. The trial court assessed Bigham’s punishment at two years of imprisonment. However, in accordance with the parties’ negotiated plea agreement, the trial court suspended imposition of that sentence and released Bigham to community supervision for a period of five years. The state filed a motion to revoke Bigham’s community supervision on Nov. 10, 2005. The state later moved to dismiss this motion on Jan. 9, 2006, a request which the trial court approved. On that same date, the trial court modified Bigham’s community supervision and directed Bigham to attend and successfully complete the Substance Abuse Felony Punishment Facility drug treatment program. Both the state and Bigham stated in their briefs that the modification of the terms of community supervision was pursuant to an agreement between the state and Bigham. Under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 42.12, �10(d) and (e), such an agreed modification is explicitly authorized without the necessity of a hearing by the trial court. On June 13, 2006, the state filed a second application to revoke Bigham’s community supervision. This second application alleged that Bigham had violated his community supervision by: 1. failing to report to his community supervision officer on the first and fifteenth days of September and October 2005, as previously ordered by the trial court; 2. failing to pay his court costs as directed; and 3. by using cocaine on five different dates. Each of these allegations had been raised in the first revocation motion. After conducting a Sept. 5, 2006, hearing on the state’s motion, the trial court found those allegations to be true, revoked Bigham’s community supervision and assessed Bigham’s punishment at imprisonment for one year. On appeal, Bigham contended the trial court erred by revoking Bigham’s community supervision based on alleged violations that had been first raised by the state before the trial court’s January 29, 2006, order modifying Bigham’s conditions of community supervision. He insisted that the state should not have been permitted to reassert any of the allegations raised in the state’s November 2005 motion, because the trial court’s order of modification served as a jeopardy bar for those earliest allegations. Bigham further contended the state failed to raise any allegations that had not been presented to the trial court before the January modification order, and, therefore, the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his community supervision. HOLDING:Affirmed. The thrust of Bigham’s argument, the court stated, is that the state’s motion to revoke community supervision was insufficient to invoke the trial court’s jurisdiction over the issues raised in that motion, because the motion did not allege violations other than those that had been presented in the premodification revocation motion. Without an attachment of jeopardy through either a written confession by Bigham or a formal hearing regarding those earlier allegations, the court stated that “nothing in the record before us persuades us that the State was not free to raise the November motion’s allegations again at a subsequent point in time.” The court also noted that the trial court received testimony that supported the court’s conclusion that Bigham had violated both the premodification allegations and the postmodification allegations contained in the state’s amended motion to revoke. Because jeopardy did not bar the trial court’s consideration of the premodification allegations and because the court received evidence sufficient to support its finding that Bigham violated the conditions of his community supervision in every way alleged by the state, the court held that the the trial court did not abuse its discretion. OPINION:Carter, J.; Morriss, C.J., and Carter and Moseley, JJ.

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

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* 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?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


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 © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.