Can a judge grant a reduction of probation for a person on a deferred State Jail Felony? CCP 42.12 Sec. 20 (b) says that it is not available to a "defendant convicted of an offense punishable as a state jail felony." However, a deferred is not a conviction. Does the use of the word "conviction" enable a reduction of a deferred State Jail probation? The same section says that it is not available for "a defendant convicted of an offense for which on conviction registration as a sex offender is required under Chapter 62." But the only type of probation available for most sex offenses is deferred. So is reduction available for deferred sex offenders? It seems absurd for the legislature to believe that straight State Jail probations should be excluded from this section, but not deferred probations. On the other hand, I have seen the legislature do some pretty absurd things lately.

Sec. 20 does not control Sec. 5. The judge can discharge the defendant under Sec. 5 the following day (or maybe later the same day). Juvrud

Oops. The Court of Criminal Appeals now advises that the opinion in Juvrud was posted by mistake and that no opinion has in fact been issued. Those who answered my poll (in another thread): "will wait to see what develops" are to be congratulated. I still think a state jail deferred can be reduced in length by the court though.

Despite my previous opinion, I have now filed a response, to a motion for early release, which reads in part as follows:
I.
Defendant acknowledged his guilt of an offense punishable as a state jail felony. As a result art. 42.12 sec. 20 (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is inapplicable to Defendant. See art. 42.12 sec. 20 (b). There is no provision of law providing for the period of community supervision to be reduced or terminated early.
II.
Even if it may be argued that "early release" is nevertheless permitted under art. 42.12 sec. 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as construed in State v. Juvrud, 96 S.W.3d 550 (Tex.App.- El Paso 2002, pet. granted), because Defendant did not strictly comply with the conditions of his supervision and because two years of supervision is a reasonable minimum period for a felony offense, the Defendant's motion should be denied. Furthermore, even if art. 42.12 sec. 5 means what the El Paso Court of Appeals held in Juvrud, because the Legislature has indicated an intent to make those committing state jail felonies ineligible for "early release" Defendant should not receive such greater benefit (i.e., both dismissal of the charge and a lesser period of supervision) than if he had been placed on "regular" community supervision. To permit art. 42.12 sec. 5 to be used in such fashion will merely discourage the State from utilizing deferred adjudication as a punishment option.

Will advise the court's decision.