This is an appeal from a conviction for theft based upon appellant’s waiver of a jury trial, stipulation of evidence confessing guilt and entry of a plea of nolo contendere. After pre-sentence investigation, the appellant was assessed punishment of three years confinement in the Texas Department of Corrections. We find no error in the trial below and affirm.
Appellant’s brief advances five grounds of error, the first being the contention that the indictment was fundamentally defective. In relevant part the indictment stated that appellant appropriated “property, namely money, owned by Robert G. Hartman, hereafter styled the Complainant, of the value of over two hundred dollars and under ten thousand dollars, with intent to deprive the Complainant of the property and without the effective consent of the Complainant.” Appellant asserts that the indictment is fundamentally defective because it failed to sufficiently describe the
Similarly, herein the motion to quash because there is a conflict between the indictment and the evidence “does not comport with the ground of error raised on appeal and presents nothing for review.” We hold the description of “property, namely, money, owned by Robert G. Hartman ... of the value of over two hundred dollars and under ten thousand dollars ...” sufficiently describes that property to invoke the jurisdiction of the trial court and to support the conviction. In the absence of a motion to quash the indictment for failure to state the actual value of $879.50 appropriated by appellant, there was no fundamental defect.
Appellant’s second ground of error complains of the trial court’s failure to enter findings of fact and conclusions of law as requested in connection with his motion to quash and his motion for evidence favorable to defendant. All the authorities cited relate to the requirements in proceedings for revocation of probation (or to civil cases). Revocation proceedings are not trials in the constitutional sense with reference to criminal cases. Hulsey v. State, 447 S.W.2d 165 (Tex.Crim.App.1969). There is no statutory provision or other requirement of findings of fact and conclusions of law with regard to preliminary motions in criminal cases. The appellant’s second ground of error has no merit.
Appellant’s third, fourth and fifth grounds of error relate to the court’s error allowing appellant to plead guilty under a condition that he reserve the right to withdraw his plea if probation on an earlier conviction in the State of Illinois was revoked and he was extradited. It is contended in this connection that appellant was led to believe that his right to withdraw continued after the trial judge took the case under advisement, also, that appellant’s counsel was ineffective by reason of the allowance of such plea of nolo contendere. The evidence from the testimony of appellant showed that his counsel had advised him that he had a “defensible case” and the record showed that his counsel’s fee was not paid. Nothing in the record shows that after the appellant’s plea was accepted by the trial court, any revocation of probation or effort to extradite him by the State of Illinois occurred. No effort was made by appellant to withdraw his plea during the month after it was made until he was sentenced. The record actually shows that his counsel, by allowing him to plead nolo con-tendere and appeal the resulting conviction