May v. State

2 Citing cases

  1. Purcell v. State

    No. 10-11-00326-CR (Tex. App. May. 17, 2012)

    . . . In other words, the judge may impose the sentence originally assessed.") (internal quotations omitted); see also Borchick, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 5842, at **3-4 (citing Mendoza v. State, No. 04-06-00135-CR, 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 7948, at *3 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Sept. 6, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); May v. State, No. 07-03-00420-CR, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 5772, at **2-3 (Tex. App.—Amarillo July 25, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) ("So, because appellant at bar was originally sentenced to a ten-year prison term, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in assessing a like term upon revoking his probation. In short, we refuse to hold that the trial court abused its discretion in doing that allowed by statute.").

  2. Borchick v. State

    No. 10-08-00409-CR (Tex. App. Jul. 29, 2009)   Cited 1 times

    A court does not abuse its discretion by imposing the sentence originally assessed. Mendoza v. State, No. 04-06-00135-CR, 2006 WL 2546485, at *1 (Tex.App.-San Antonio Sept. 6, 2006, no pet.) (not designated for publication); May v. State, No. 07-03-00420-CR, 2005 WL 1743359, at *1 (Tex.App.-Amarillo July 25, 2005, no pet.) (not designated for publication). Thus, we overrule Borchick's complaint that the court abused its discretion by imposing the sentence originally assessed.