Garrett v. State
377 S.W.3d 697
| Tex. Crim. App. | 2012Background
- Garrett pled guilty to a state-jail felony (possession of cocaine) and was placed on deferred adjudication for five years in 2002.
- In 2007 the trial court extended Garrett’s deferred-adjudication period by two years; in 2008 a revocation motion was granted and Garrett was adjudicated guilty and sentenced.
- Garrett did not object to the extensions at any point; she argued on appeal that the trial court lacked authority to extend deferred-adjudication in state-jail cases.
- Turner pled guilty to a state-jail felony (forged check) and received two years of deferred adjudication; the court extended this period three times, with a revocation in 2009.
- The Fort Worth Court of Appeals held the extensions were authorized under Article 42.12, Section 15(b) (extensions for regular probation after conviction), and not Section 22(c); the Texas Supreme Court rejected that approach and held extensions may be authorized for deferred adjudication via Sections 5(a) and 22(c).
- Turner was treated as grandfathered under the pre-2007 amendment to Section 22(c), which required a showing of good cause only for extensions after September 1, 2007; Turner’s original placement occurred in August 2006.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial courts may extend deferred-adjudication for state-jail felonies. | Garrett and Turner argued no authority under §22(c) for state-jail deferred adjudication. | State/Turner argued authority exists under §15(b) or §22(c). | Yes; authority exists via §5(a) and §22(c) for deferred-adjudication state-jail felonies. |
| Does §15(b) govern extensions for deferred adjudication in state-jail cases? | Garrett argued §15(b) controls, not §22(c). | State argued §15(b) governs; some courts relied on §22(c). | No; §15(b) governs only extensions for regular probation after conviction, not deferred adjudication. |
| Is §22(c) applicable to deferred-adjudication state-jail supervision when construed with §5(a)? | Garrett urged §22(c) does not apply to deferred adjudication for state-jail felonies. | State urged §22(c) applies as construed by some courts. | Yes; §5(a) incorporated with §22(c) authorizes extensions for deferred adjudication in state-jail felonies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Puente v. State, 71 S.W.3d 340 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002) (discusses statutory structure of deferred adjudication and extensions (obiter dictum in part).)
- State v. Juvrud, 187 S.W.3d 492 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006) (recognizes special provisions for deferred adjudication prevail over general probation provisions.)
- Shipp v. State, 331 S.W.3d 433 (Tex.Crim.App. 2011) (plurality on probation issues; examines interpretation of §42.12.)
- Ex parte Schroeter, 958 S.W.2d 811 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997) (teaches treatment of legislative intent in statutory interpretation.)
- Brown v. State, 943 S.W.2d 35 (Tex.Crim.App. 1997) (illustrates interpretation of probation statutes.)
- Harris v. State, 359 S.W.3d 625 (Tex.Crim.App. 2011) (cites fidelity to statutory language and extratextual factors.)