Joseph Nabil Sidhom v. State, 05-15-00087-CR

Appellant Joseph Nabil Sidhom pleaded guilty to theft (value $20,000–$100,000) under a negotiated plea: 8 years, sentence suspended, 10 years community supervision, $2,000 fine, restitution $27,154.14.
State filed a motion to revoke community supervision (Nov 26, 2013) alleging three violations; an amended motion (Jan 9, 2015) added three more alleged violations.
At the Jan 14, 2015 revocation hearing, defense counsel said she first reviewed the amended motion that morning; she and appellant discussed it and excluded the allegations appellant would plead “not true.”
The court confirmed counsel had less than the statutory ten-day preparation period and asked whether appellant wished to waive the ten days; appellant, after consulting counsel, expressly waived on the record and proceeded.
Appellant entered open pleas of “true” to four of six alleged violations; the trial court revoked community supervision and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment.
On appeal appellant argued the waiver of the statutory ten-day preparation period was not voluntary, intelligent, and knowing and thus revocation was erroneous; the Court of Appeals affirmed as modified, reforming the judgment to specify the four violations proved.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the revocation hearing was permitted without respecting the statutory ten-day preparation period	State: revocation may proceed if defendant and counsel waive the ten-day period on the record	Sidhom: waiver was not voluntary, intelligent, or knowing; needed ten days to prepare/mitigate	The court held the on-the-record waiver by counsel with appellant’s consent was valid; no Article 1.051(e) violation; revocation not an abuse of discretion
Whether the record supports revocation based on alleged violations	State: appellant pleaded true to four violations, sufficient to revoke	Sidhom: (implicitly) lack of preparation may have denied opportunity to present mitigating evidence	The court found sufficient evidence (including appellant’s true pleas) to revoke and affirmed sentence
Whether the judgment accurately described the specific violations proven	State: attached amended motion listed all alleged violations	Sidhom: judgment referenced the amended motion but did not specify which violations were found	The court reformed the judgment to expressly list the four violations (a[1], d, g, p) and affirmed as modified
Whether appellate review standard permits reversal here	State: revocation reviewed for abuse of discretion	Sidhom: contended procedural error warranted reversal	The court applied abuse-of-discretion review and found no abuse given valid waiver and pleas

Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (standard: appellate review of revocation is for abuse of discretion)
Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (same principle on revocation review)
Henson v. State, 530 S.W.2d 584 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975) (reversal where record showed no proper waiver of statutory ten-day period)
Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (authority supporting reforming judgments on appeal)
Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d) (support for reforming judgments to reflect proven violations)