Armstrong v. State

1 Citing case

  1. Granderson v. State

    No. 14-06-01157-CR (Tex. App. Sep. 13, 2007)

    366, 2002 WL 1421539, at *1 (Tex.App.-Amarillo June 28, 2002, no pet.) (not designated for publication). In support of his argument, appellant cites Robles v. State, 141 S.W.3d 250, 251 (Tex.App.-Austin 2004, no pet.). In Robles, the defendant was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and sentenced to six years' confinement; however, the trial court did not credit the defendant the time he served from his arrest until his conviction. Id. On appeal, the court granted the defendant credit toward his sentence for time served. Id. at 255. Appellant's reliance on Robles is misplaced because the court did not address the issue of time served that was previously credited toward confinement as a condition of community supervision. In Armstrong v. State, the Waco Court of Appeals addressed whether, in the context of revoked community supervision, a trial court must award a defendant credit for time that was previously credited toward his condition of community supervision. See No. 10-02-077, 2003 WL 22023575, at *1 (Tex.App.-Waco Aug 27, 2003, pet. ref'd) (not designated for publication). In Armstrong, as a part of a plea agreement, the trial court assessed punishment at 730 days' confinement and a $1,000 fine, with the imprisonment suspended by community supervision for 2 years. Id. As a condition of community supervision, the trial court required the defendant to serve 169 days. Id. This 169 days represented the number of days the defendant had served between the time of his arrest and his plea. Id. When the defendant's community supervision was revoked, the trial court assessed punishment of 450 days' confinement and a $1,000 fine. Id. The trial court only credited the defendant with 83 days, which was the time the defendant had spent in confinement prior to his revocation hearing, but the trial court did not credit the defendant for any of the 169 days he served prior to his original plea. Id. at *1-2. On appeal, the defendant argued that denying him credit for the 169 days served prior to his plea, on the basis that he served the