Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

86 S.W.3d 754

Ballard v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided August 28, 2002

Court of Appeals of Texas · decided 2002-08-28

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently November 2003

1 state decisions

Relies on Peacock v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2002-08-28

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

TOM GRAY, Justice,

¶1dissenting.

¶2What we do today is illogical. The effect of today’s extension of Peacock is that due diligence is a defense even if the motion to revoke/adjudicate, the issuance of the capias, incarceration, and hearing all occur during the period of supervision. See Peacock v. State, 77 S.W.3d 285 (Tex.Crim.App.2002). Due diligence should only be an issue if the defendant is not incarcerated before the community supervision has expired. Ballard was incarcerated before her community supervision expired. I respectfully dissent.

/86/sw3d/754 · .json · Public domain