Thomas Lee Spruill A/K/A Mauldin Austin v. State, 2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 7123

Spruill was indicted for possession of cocaine and, after a plea, sentenced to two years in state jail probated for three years.
He was placed on state jail felony community supervision under article 42.12, §15.
In December 2010 the State filed a motion titled “Motion to Proceed with an Adjudication of Guilty,” alleging violations of supervision and referring to deferred adjudication.
The motion wrongly labeled the supervision as deferred adjudication, though Spruill was on state jail felony supervision, a form of regular probation.
A capias was issued and Spruill was arrested January 6, 2011; a probation-revocation hearing occurred August 15, 2011.
The court revoked supervision and sentenced Spruill to two years in state jail after actions at the hearing; defense counsel did not object to the motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether revocation jurisdiction was proper despite mislabeling of the motion	State: motion to proceed with adjudication functioned as a motion to revoke	Spruill: improper motion title deprived court of jurisdiction	Motion to proceed with adjudication is a valid motion to revoke; jurisdiction proper
Ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object	Spruill argues counsel was ineffective for not objecting or preserving issues	Spruill argues trial counsel should have objected to preserve error	Issue moot after affirming jurisdiction; ineffective-assistance claim overruled

LaBelle v. State, 720 S.W.2d 108 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985) (motion need not follow indictment form; must provide fair notice)
Rodriguez v. State, 951 S.W.2d 199 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1997, no pet.) (functional equivalence of motions; notice suffices)
State v. Savage, 933 S.W.2d 497 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (look to function over form for motion labeling)
State v. Evans, 843 S.W.2d 576 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (functional effect governs motion classification)
Figgins v. State, 528 S.W.2d 261 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973) (notice and fairness govern revocation procedures)
Mitchell v. State, 608 S.W.2d 226 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (adequate notice suffices even with technical flaws)
Mason v. State, 495 S.W.2d 248 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973) (motion validity judged by notice and fairness)
Coleman v. State, 632 S.W.2d 616 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982) (probation-revocation procedures and jurisdictional basics)
Lynch v. State, 502 S.W.2d 740 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973) (procedural requirements for revocation hearings)