Jamie Lee Burns A/K/A Jamie Lee Nelson v. the State of Texas

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
Nos. 07-20-00357-CR
07-20-00358-CR
JAMIE LEE BURNS AKA JAMIE LEE NELSON, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 316th District Court
Hutchison County, Texas
Trial Court Nos. 11,257 & 11,393, Honorable James M. Mosley, Presiding
September 30, 2021
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ.
Jamie Lee Burns, aka Jamie Lee Nelson, appeals from judgments revoking her
community supervision and sentencing her to prison. Her two issues concern 1) the trial
court’s alleged loss of jurisdiction to act on the State’s motions to revoke and 2) the
purported denial to a speedy hearing on the motions. We affirm.
Jurisdiction
According to appellant, “[t]he State must exercise due diligence in apprehending
the defendant after issuance of a warrant or capias on a State’s motion to revoke
probation.” Because it allegedly did not exercise same and the probation period ended
before the trial court heard the motions to revoke, the latter lost jurisdiction over them.
A trial court retains jurisdiction to entertain a motion to revoke probation or
community supervision so long as 1) the motion is filed and 2) capias issues before the
probationary term expires. Ex part Moss, 446 S.W.3d 786, 791 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).
This is true even if the trial court actually hears the motion to revoke after the period
expires. Id. The record at bar discloses that appellant’s probationary period expired in
2019. In November of 2016, though, the State moved to revoke her community
supervision, and the trial court issued capias, i.e., ordered appellant’s arrest. Thus, it
retained jurisdiction to address the State’s motions to revoke in 2020.
As for diligence regarding arrest and the State’s purported failure to exercise same,
such complaints require preservation in the trial court. Peacock v. State, 77 S.W.3d 285,
287–88 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); High v. State, No. 07-18-00198-CR, 2019 Tex. App.
LEXIS 5143, at *4 (Tex. App.—Amarillo June 19, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated
for publication); see Harris v. State, 843 S.W.2d 34, 35 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (en banc)
(stating that the onus is on the State to show diligence in apprehending the probationer
and hearing the allegations in the motion “once the issue is raised by the probationer”).
Appellant did not raise the matter below. Thus, it was not preserved for our review.
2
Speedy Hearing
Appellant next contends that she was denied her right to a speedy revocation
hearing. Like her complaint about due diligence, this one also requires preservation in
the trial court. Henson v. State, 407 S.W.3d 764, 769 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); Huck v.
State, 348 S.W.3d 359, 363 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2011, no pet.). It was not.
Accordingly, we overrule the issues before us and affirm the the judgment.
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
Do not publish.
3