Carolyn Marie Davis v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
________________
NO. 09-22-00340-CR
________________
CAROLYN MARIE DAVIS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
________________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 11-12979
________________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In 2012, Carolyn Marie Davis, pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, a second-
degree felony. 1 See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.02. Pursuant to a plea-bargain
agreement, after Davis pleaded “guilty” to the charge, the court found sufficient
evidence to find the Appellant guilty, but deferred adjudication and placed her on
1
In the indictment and the Judgment Adjudicating Guilt, Davis’s name is
listed as “Carolyn Marie Davis AKA Carolyn Marie Simpson[.]” In the Deferred
Adjudication Order, Davis’s name is listed as “Davis, Carolyn Marie[.]”
1
community supervision for ten years. In September 2022, upon the State’s motion
to revoke adjudication probation, and after a hearing, the trial court revoked Davis’s
community supervision and ordered her incarcerated in the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice for two years.
In one issue on appeal, Davis argues that the trial court did not have
jurisdiction to revoke her community supervision. According to Davis, she was
placed on community supervision on January 17, 2012, for a period of ten years and
the State first moved to revoke her unadjudicated probation on January 3, 2022. The
State then filed an amended motion to revoke unadjudicated probation on June 6,
2022. This amended motion included a new allegation that she violated her probation
in May 2022. Davis argues the amended motion replaced the January motion, and
because her community supervision ended in January 2022, and the amended motion
was not filed within her probationary period, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to
revoke her community supervision.
The State disagrees with the argument made by the defendant but otherwise
agrees the trial court lacked jurisdiction but for a different reason. The State contends
that the trial court lacked jurisdiction in this case because the capias issued after the
period of supervision has expired. See Ex parte Lozoya, 666 S.W.3d 618, 626 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2023) (explaining a trial court lacks jurisdiction to revoke community
supervision when the motion to revoke was filed and capias issued after the period
2
of supervision has expired); see also Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42A.751(l)(1),
(2)2. The State acknowledges that the District Clerk did not file the capias in the
original motion to revoke until after Davis’s community supervision ended. The
State agrees that Davis’s conviction and sentence should be reversed and remanded
for an order discharging Davis from community supervision.
We conclude the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the capias on the
original motion to revoke was not filed until after Davis’s community supervision
ended. We sustain Appellant’s sole issue on appeal; we reverse and remand the
judgment of the court to release Davis from community supervision.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
JAY WRIGHT
Justice
Submitted on April 22, 2024
Opinion Delivered June 12, 2024
Do Not Publish
Before Horton, Johnson and Wright, JJ.
2
We cite the current statute as subsequent amendments do not affect our
disposition.
3