Pedraza v. State

9 Citing cases

  1. Jaynes v. State

    673 S.W.2d 198 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984)   Cited 18 times
    In Jaynes, we relied upon the reasoning in Pedraza v. State, 562 S.W.2d 259, 259-260 (Tex.Cr.App. 1978), which addressed the maximum period of probation in the context of the misdemeanor probation statute, Tex. Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 42.13, Sec. 3. While the majority suggests our holding in Jaynes resulted from a misreading of the applicable statute, majority op. at pg.

    The court assessed punishment at eight years and placed appellant on probation for eight years. A similar situation arose in Pedraza v. State, 562 S.W.2d 259 (Tex.Cr.App. 1978). Pedraza was convicted of misdemeanor assault [V.T.C.A., Penal Code, Section 22.01(a)(1)] and placed on probation for two years.

  2. Chauncey v. State

    877 S.W.2d 305 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994)   Cited 11 times
    Stating defendant was placed on community supervision as alternative to sentence

    Id. (emphasis added). This conclusion was based upon our opinion in Pedraza v. State, 562 S.W.2d 259 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978), where we had stated that the term of probation for a misdemeanor was limited to the maximum term of confinement allowable for the offense. In Jaynes, we applied "the same reasoning to felony probations."

  3. Roseberry v. State

    NO. 02-15-00086-CR (Tex. App. Aug. 11, 2016)

    Drawing on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals's distinctions between community supervision and a sentence, we rely on two cases, one from that court and one from ours, to conclude that the November 2010 order and subsequent 2015 revocation are not void ab initio. Pedraza v. State, 562 S.W.2d 259 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); Warmoth v. State, 946 S.W.2d 526 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1997, no pet.). In Pedraza v. State, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals addressed the effects of an original probation order that placed Pedraza on probation for a term beyond the statutory maximum.

  4. Ex parte Lozoya

    666 S.W.3d 618 (Tex. Crim. App. 2023)   Cited 7 times
    In Lozoya, the applicant was also placed on community supervision for ten years for a third degree felony under the Texas Health and Safety Code, even though the maximum period authorized by statute was five years.

    It further concluded that, because Applicant's community supervision ended after the lawful five-year period expired without a motion to revoke having been filed within that time, the court did not have the jurisdiction to revoke Applicant's community supervision, and the judgment purporting to do so was void for lack of jurisdiction. The habeas court relied on Prior v. State , 795 S.W. d 179, 183 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990), Pedraza v. State , 562 S.W.2d 259, 260 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978), and Coffey v. State , 500 S.W.2d 515, 515 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973). Applicant had different counsel for his motion to revoke.

  5. Warmoth v. State

    946 S.W.2d 526 (Tex. App. 1997)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that a judge may, either with or without a hearing, extend the period of supervision under Section 22(c)

    To that issue, we now turn. The State points us to Pedraza v. State, 562 S.W.2d 259, 260 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1978) and argues that the order is voidable only as to the time period that exceeds three years from the start of Warmoth's community supervision, April 16, 1992. In Pedraza, the judge placed the defendant on two years' misdemeanor probation in a case where the maximum length of probation was one year.

  6. Rogers v. Pearland Indep. Sch. Dist.

    827 F.3d 403 (5th Cir. 2016)   Cited 64 times
    Upholding summary judgment for failing the fourth prong of the prima facie case

    Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.120 ) (indicating that delivery of marijuana was felony in the third degree unless actor delivers one-quarter ounce or less without receiving remuneration, in which case it is a class B misdemeanor).Compare Tex. Code of Crim. Proc. Ann. Art. 42.13, § 3 (1979) (repealed by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 76, § 7.10, eff. Sept. 1, 1995) (limiting period of probation to maximum period of imprisonment applicable for the offense), and Pedraza v. State , 562 S.W.2d 259, 259–60 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978) (explaining that under scheme applicable at the time, period of probation could not exceed maximum term of confinement allowable for offense of conviction), with Acts of 1973, 63rd Leg. R.S., ch. 399, § 12.22, 1973 Tex. Gen. Laws 907, codified at Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.22 (imposing maximum sentence of 180 days imprisonment for class B misdemeanors), and Ex parte Gutierrez , 600 S.W.2d 933, 934 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (noting 180 day maximum).

  7. State v. Rohrich

    450 N.W.2d 774 (N.D. 1990)   Cited 8 times

    See, e.g., State v. Vigil, 103 N.M. 581, 711 P.2d 26 (1985) [where maximum sentence of imprisonment for misdemeanor was one year, one year was the maximum period of probation that the trial court could validly impose on the defendant]; Bell v. State, 479 So.2d 308 (Fla.App. 1985) [trial court erred in sentencing defendant to two years of probation; proper period of probation for defendant's misdemeanor was six months, the maximum term of imprisonment for the offense]. See generally Green v. State, 392 So.2d 333 (Fla.App. 1981); Pedraza v. State, 562 S.W.2d 259 (Tex.App. 1978); Diorio v. State, 359 So.2d 45 (Fla.App. 1978); State v. Blackman, 114 Ariz. 517, 562 P.2d 397 (1977). Moreover, we believe that our holding in the instant case is consistent with the prior decisions of this Court which have stated that combined sentences of imprisonment and probation may not exceed the maximum term for which a defendant might have been imprisoned.

  8. Gertz v. State

    No. 10-11-00008-CR (Tex. App. Aug. 30, 2012)   Cited 9 times

    Moreover, we agree with the State's contention that, even if Gertz is correct, his sentence on count two and the trial court' revocation order are still valid. When a community-supervision period exceeds that prescribed by law, an order placing the defendant on community supervision is void only to the extent that it subjects the defendant to probationary supervision beyond that authorized by law. Pedraza v. State, 562 S.W.2d 259, 260 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Any violation of the conditions of community supervision that occurred and were alleged in a motion to revoke within the permissible community-supervision period will support a revocation order.

  9. Opinion No. GA-0413

    Opinion No. GA-0413 (Ops. Tex. Atty. Gen. Mar. 13, 2006)

    In Pedraza v. State, the trial judge placed the defendant on misdemeanor probation for a period of two years in a case where the maximum length of probation, under the version of the statute in effect at the time, was one year. SeePedraza v. State, 562 S.W.2d 259, 260 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978) (citing Nicklas v. State, 530 S.W.2d 537 (Tex.Crim.App. 1975) and Ex parte Miller, 552 S.W.2d 164 (Tex.Crim.App. 1977)). The defendant's probation period commenced on November 3, 1976.