additional pleabargained cases, and mandate has issued. We address those cases only as they relate to Appellant’s suggestion that his pleas in those cases affect his punishment agreement in the two revocation cases now on appeal. Appellant’s argument fails for multiple reasons. In Ms letters, Appellant did not ask the trial court to withdraw his pleas of guilty and did not ask for a new trial in the additional two cases or in the cases now before us. When the trial court received the letters, the trial court had already pronounced sentence in all four cases, and Appellant was already serving each sentence. The trial court therefore had no vehicle for withdrawing the guilty pleas in the two additional cases or for vacating the related sentences in the cases before us. A trial p.1975) (<HOLDING>), overruled on other grounds by Henson v.
holding that where there were two possible grounds to revoke defendants probation and only one ground was relied on to revoke his probation defendant was not entitled to jailtime credit when he was later convicted on the offense that constituted the other ground it did not matter that the authorities learned about the ground for revocation while investigating the offense for which he was convicted sjection 558031 requires only that custody be related to the offense on which credit is sought because his custody was not related to the convicted offense he did not get any credit holding that it is sufficient grounds to revoke a probation if only one condition of the probation is broken holding that any deficiency in failure to object to hearsay did not prejudice defendant when testimony was cumulative of other evidence holding states allegation of failure to report to probation officer was sufficient to revoke despite any showing of deficiency in the other two violations alleged in the motion to revoke holding that neither the doctrines of double jeopardy nor collateral estoppel apply to probation revocation proceedings after an acquittal on the charge used as basis to revoke probation