608 S.W.2d 237 - Vaughn v. State

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently December 2005

8 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1 OPINION

ROBERTS, Judge.

¶2 Vaughn appeals from the revocation of his probation. In his first ground of error he collaterally attacks the evidence of guilt that was before the court when he was granted probation after pleading guilty to sexual abuse of a child. His argument is that his written, judicial confession that he sexually abused Shelia B_was insufficient to prove the allegation in the indictment that he sexually abused Shelia B_First, this is an improper collateral attack on the sufficiency of the evidence. Traylor v. State, 561 S.W.2d 492, 494 (Tex.Cr.App.1978). Second, even if the sufficiency of the evidence may be attacked collaterally, there is nothing in the record to show that the written confession was the only proof of guilt. Id. at 495. Third, even if the written confession were the only proof *238 of guilt, there would be no variance; “Sheila” and “Shelia” are idem sonantes.

¶3 In the second ground of error the appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the order revoking probation. The motion to revoke probation alleged that the appellant raped a child. Without objection, the trial court took judicial notice of the child’s testimony at the appellant’s trial for the criminal offense. Her testimony was sufficient evidence.

¶4 In the third ground of error the appellant argues that it was error to revoke probation after a jury had found him not guilty of the same offense that was alleged in the motion to revoke. That was not error. Bradley v. State, 608 S.W.2d 652 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); McDonald v. State, 608 S.W.2d 192 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); Russell v. State, 551 S.W.2d 710 (Tex.Cr.App.1977).

¶5 The judgment is affirmed.