Probation Revocation

In 2009, the trial judge at the hearing on a motion to revoke Amber Lovill’s community supervision amended the terms of supervision to account for Lovill’s pregnancy. Lovill filed a motion for new trial alleging that she was subjected to gender-based selective prosecution in violation of the Equal Protection Clauses to the U.S. and Texas Constitution’s due course of law provision, and the Texas Equal Rights Amendment. The trial judge denied the motion.

The Court of Appeals granted habeas corpus relief. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that Lovill forfeited her selective prosecution complaint because her revocation proceeding statements were not specific and timely as required by Rule 33.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Lovill’s statements were not specific enough to apprise the trial judge that she was complaining about gender-based selective prosecution in violation of her constitutional rights. Lovill did contend that but for her pregnancy, the probation department wold not have reported her violation of supervision, and the District Attorney would not have moved to revoke supervision. However, at no time did Lovill challenge the legality of the entire revocation proceeding on the basis of gender-based selective prosecution or discrimination.