Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
YOLANDA EVETTE MCNEAL, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Opinion By Justice Moseley
Pursuant to an open plea agreement, Yolanda Evette McNeal entered a plea of guilty to the offense of forgery by check. The trial court accepted the plea, found the evidence substantiated her guilt, but deferred adjudication of guilt and placed her on community supervision for three years and assessed a $750 fine. In a single issue, McNeal claims the trial court abused its discretion by ordering her to participate in the Substance Abuse Felony Punishment (SAFP) program.
The background and facts of the case are well known to the parties; thus, we do not recite them here in detail. Because all dispositive issues are settled in law, we issue this memorandum opinion. Tex.R.App. P. 47.2(a), 47.4. We affirm.
A trial court may order participation in a SAFP program if it makes an affirmative finding that (1) drug or alcohol abuse significantly contributed to the commission of the crime or violation of community supervision; and (2) the defendant is a suitable candidate for treatment, as determined by the suitability criteria established by the Texas Board of Criminal Justice. See Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 14(b)(3) (West Supp.2011). McNeal argues the trial court did not make the affirmative findings required to place her in the SAFP program and the findings cannot be implied from the record.
However, a defendant who fails to object to conditions of probation at trial affirmatively accepts them and is barred from complaining about them for the first time on appeal. See Tex.R.App. P. 33.1(a); Speth v. State, 6 S.W.3d 530, 534 (Tex.Crim.App.1999). The only exceptions that have been recognized involve situations where the probationer has effectively been denied the opportunity to object, such as modification of the conditions of probation without a hearing. See Rickels v. State, 108 S.W.3d 900, 902 (Tex.Crim.App.2003).
Because McNeal had the opportunity to object to the SAFP program as a condition of her probation and failed to do so, she has waived her right to complain of that condition on appeal. We overrule appellant's issue.
We affirm the trial court's judgment.
S
Court of AppealsFifth District of Texas at DallasJUDGMENT
YOLANDA EVETTE MCNEAL, Appellant
No. 05–11–01155–CR V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, AppelleeAppeal from the 194th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No.F10–42158–M).
Opinion delivered by Justice Moseley, Justices Morris and Myers participating.
Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered June 4, 2012.
/Jim Moseley/
JIM MOSELEY
JUSTICE
JIM MOSELEY JUSTICE
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: No. 05–11–01155–CR
Decided: June 04, 2012
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)