Opinion
No. 05-09-01207-CR
Opinion issued June 28, 2010. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47
On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F08-60234-T.
Before Justices BRIDGES, FITZGERALD, and FILLMORE.
OPINION
Rodney McGaughy appeals following the adjudication of his guilt for aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. In a single issue, McGaughy contends the trial court's adjudication of guilt in this case violated his rights to due process and due course of law. McGaughy complains that the trial court failed to make specific written findings (a) indicating which conditions of his community supervision he violated, and (b) explaining why sentencing him to a period of incarceration served the interests of the rehabilitation of persons convicted of violations of the penal code. We affirm the trial court's judgment. McGaughy waived a jury and pleaded guilty to committing aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. The trial court deferred adjudicating guilt and placed McGaughy on five years' community supervision with a fine of $3000. The State later moved to adjudicate guilt, alleging McGaughy had violated ten terms of his community supervision. In a hearing on the motion, McGaughy pleaded true to all of the allegations. The trial court accepted his plea, found the allegations in the motion to be true, granted the State's motion, and revoked McGaughy's community supervision. The court then adjudicated McGaughy guilty and assessed punishment at fifteen years' imprisonment. On appeal, McGaughy contends that because the trial court failed to make written findings, he cannot know the reasons the court relied upon for granting the State's motion or for setting the sentence. McGaughy concedes the trial court stated on the record that it found the allegations in the motion to be true, but he complains the court did not indicate in writing which allegations it found to be true or on what evidence it based its decision. This failure, he argues, deprived him of due process under the federal constitution. The minimum requirements of due process that must be observed in community service revocation hearings include a written statement by the fact finder as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for revoking community service. See Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 786 (1973). Texas courts, however, require a defendant to make a request for specific findings. See King v. State, 649 S.W.2d 42, 46 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983). In the absence of such a request, the trial court's failure to make specific findings in the order revoking community service is not reversible error. Id. In this case, McGaughy did not request specific findings. Moreover, the State's motion to adjudicate is included in the record, and the judgment recites the trial court found the allegations in the motion to adjudicate had been proven. We conclude the judgment adjudicating guilt satisfies minimum due process requirements. We resolve McGaughy's single issue against him. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
McGaughy acknowledges this well-settled rule, but asks us to re-classify his right to written findings as one that cannot be forfeited. As an intermediate court, this Court is not free to disregard the decisions of the Court of Criminal Appeals. We decline McGaughy's invitation to do so.