Legal Opinion
Mathis, John Kent
Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
Decided March 12, 2014No. PD-0536-13PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
2Judgment of the CourtCochran, J.
WOMACK, JOHNSON, and ALCALA, JJ.,
joined.
This case raises the old adage that you can’t get blood from a turnip. The court of appeals modified the trial court’s judgment to delete the requirement that appellant pay for a SCRAM device,1 concluding that a trial judge may not, over objection, order an indigent defendant to pay for a SCRAM device as a term of his probation without considering his financial ability.2 We agree that the trial judge did not actually “consider” appellant’s ability to pay for a SCRAM device at the time of sentencing. But we disagree that the remedy is to simply…
3Cases cited9 opinions
- Bearden v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Fuller v. OregonSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Luquis v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2002
- In Re AntazoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
- Ex Parte GonzalesCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1997
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by10 opinions
- Benito Martinez v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District2018
- Christopher Elton Campbell v. State, Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso)2016
- Ex Parte John Kent Mathis, Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas)2015
- Hailey Marie Carter v. the State of Texas, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)2024
- Martin Cruz v. the State of Texas, Texas Court of Appeals, 14th District (Houston)2023
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.