was not
proven by a preponderance of the evidence but was found by judicial notice by the trial court to
be untrue."  Third, appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence at the revocation hearing
to show that he was intoxicated.  The first two points are so interwoven that they shall be
considered together.  It should be made clear that appellant is not claiming that he did not receive
adequate notice from the revocation motion of the violation of probationary conditions against
which he had to defend, but claims only that there was an incorrect recitation of historical fact in
the revocation motion.  The motion erroneously alleged that appellant had been convicted of
"Driving while intoxicated--Subsequent, a felony and assessed a punishment of confinement in the
State Penitentiary for a period of two (2)years" before being placed on probation.  When
appellant entered a plea of "not true" to each alleged violation of probationary condition, his
counsel, who had also represented him at the time of the original plea of guilty, asked to enter an
additional plea of "not true" to the recitation in the State's revocation motion that appellant was
on "probation for a felony" and had been assessed a punishment of two years' imprisonment.  The
trial court "accepted" this plea of "not true," but immediately pointed out that the trial court
records properly reflected misdemeanor probation after the assessment of punishment of one year
in jail.  At this point, the trial court formally took judicial notice of its own records in the instant
case.  There was no objection to such action nor was there