¶1OPINION
¶2Appeal is taken from an order revoking probation. Appellant entered a plea of guilty before the court to the offense of forgery of a credit card on June 12, 1973. Punishment was assessed at seven years probated.
¶3The State filed a motion on February 12, 1974, alleging that appellant violated a condition of his probation in that on January 17, 1974, appellant “committed the offense of aggravated robbery in Harris County, Texas. . . . ”
¶4The record reflects that after a hearing on October 4, 1974, the court entered an order revoking appellant’s probation finding that appellant had violated the terms of his probation “in that on the 17th of January, A.D. 1974, he did commit the offense of aggravated robbery in Harris County, Texas.”
¶5Appellant contends the court abused its discretion in revoking probation in that the evidence is insufficient to support the court’s finding that appellant committed a violation of the law.
¶6After the State offered a certified copy of the judgment in the primary offense and appellant was identified as the person named in the judgment, the State then offered:
“. . . all of that evidence which this Court heard at the date of trial of this cause, the State of Texas versus Charles Ray Green in Cause No. 209,070, styled The State of Texas versus Charles Ray Green, said charge being that of aggravated robbery.”
¶7The court then noted that Cause No. 209,-070 was tried on September 5, 1974, before a jury “in this Court.” It was further established that the judge presiding at the hearing on the motion to revoke was the same judge who presided at the trial of Cause No. 209,070.
¶8The appellant objected to the proffer of evidence from Cause No. 209,070 for the reasons that appellant “is thereby not allowed to confrontation of witnesses in this cause” and “this is hearsay evidence.” The overruling of appellant’s objections by the court forms the basis of this contention.
¶9The identical question was before this Court in Barrientez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 500 S.W.2d 474. In that case, this Court found Hilton v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 443 S.W.2d 844, to be in point, stating:
*619“As in Hilton, the present appellant was before the same judge in the same court in both the case where the probation was granted as well as the trial of the offense which was made the basis of revoking his probation.”
¶10This Court went on to say that the State should not be forced to reproduce the same witnesses before the same judge and held that the judge could take judicial notice of the evidence introduced in the prior proceeding. See Stephenson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 500 S.W.2d 855. The holding in Bar-rientez dictates that the court did not abuse its discretion in finding that appellant had violated the conditions of his probation by committing the offense of aggravated robbery.
¶11Appellant contends the court erred in revoking his probation in that the conviction for the subsequent offense which formed the basis for revocation was on appeal and therefore not a final conviction.
¶12We find appellant’s reliance on Prince v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 503 S.W.2d 777, to be misplaced. In Prince, this Court held that probation could not be revoked on the ground that defendant had subsequently been convicted of committing an offense where such conviction was not final. In the instant case, the State did not rely upon the conviction as the basis for its motion to revoke probation. Both the motion to revoke and the order revoking probation were worded to the effect that appellant committed the offense of aggravated robbery. The State alleged and sought to prove the commission, not the conviction, of the offense of aggravated robbery. See Barrientez v. State, supra.
¶13No abuse of discretion is shown in the revocation of appellant’s probation.
¶14The judgment is affirmed.
¶15Opinion approved by the Court.