Opinion
No. 05-11-00069-CR No. 05-11-00070-CR
08-16-2012
RUBEN DONELL JEFFRIES, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
Affirmed as Modified;
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F-0471516-J and F-0973128-J
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Bridges, Francis, and Lang
Opinion By Justice Lang
Ruben Donell Jeffries appeals from the adjudication of his guilt for aggravated sexual assault of a child and his conviction for failure to register as a sex offender. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.021(a)(1)(B),(2)(B) (West Supp. 2012); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. Art. 62.102 (West 2006). In three issues, he asserts (1) the trial court erred in overruling his objection to the admission of certain evidence, (2) the judgment in the sexual assault case (appellate cause number 05-11-00069- CR) incorrectly reflects his plea, and (3) the judgment in the failure to register case (appellate cause number 05-11-00070-CR) identifies the wrong statute for the offense. We modify both judgments and, as modified, affirm. Because the issues of law are well-settled, we issue this memorandum opinion. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(a), 47.4. I. Background
Jeffries was charged with sexually assaulting his cousin's eight-year old stepdaughter. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Jeffries pleaded nolo contendere, and the trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed him on community supervision for a term of five years. The trial court also assessed a $1500 fine.
Three years later, the State, asserting Jeffries violated the terms of his community supervision, moved to proceed with an adjudication of guilt. Specifically, the State asserted Jeffries failed to comply with the requirement that he (1) report monthly to his probation officer; (2) pay his court costs and fine; (3) attend the community supervision and corrections department's "Comprehensive Assessment and Treatment Services Program;" (4) pay his probation fees; (5) pay his sex offender treatment cost; (6) complete 320 hours of community service hours; and (7) successfully complete sex offender treatment. Subsequently, the State charged Jeffries by indictment for failing to register as a sex offender.
In a single proceeding before the bench, Jeffries pleaded "true" to the first six allegations in the motion to adjudicate, "not true" to the motion's seventh allegation, and guilty to the charge of failing to register. The prosecutor did not call any witnesses, but offered into evidence in the sexual assault case, Jeffries's written voluntary plea of true. The State also asked the trial court to take judicial notice of the contents of its file. In the failure to register case, the State offered into evidence Jeffries's voluntary judicial confession and stipulation of evidence.
Jeffries testified as the sole witness for the defense and sought a continuation of his community supervision. He explained why he failed to register and why he stopped going to sex offender treatment. On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked Jeffries a few follow-up questions concerning the sex offender treatment program and then, over counsel's objection, questioned him about the underlying facts of the sexual assault.
The trial court found the allegations in the motion to proceed to adjudication of guilt "true," adjudicated Jeffries's guilt for the offense of aggravated sexual assault, and assessed punishment at fifteen years' confinement. The trial court also found Jeffries guilty of failing to register and assessed punishment in that case at four year's confinement and a $1500 fine.
II. Evidentiary Ruling
In his first issue, Jeffries argues the trial court erred in overruling his objection to the prosecutor's questions concerning the underlying facts of the sexual assault. Jeffries contends the sole issue at the adjudication hearing was whether he violated the terms of community supervision, and not whether he committed the sexual assault. As such, he contends further, the evidence of the assault was improperly admitted. In response, the State asserts the challenged testimony was admissible for a proper punishment determination.
A. Applicable Law
A revocation or adjudication hearing is an administrative proceeding, held after a determination of guilt has already been made, in which the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant has violated a condition of his community supervision. Leonard v. State, No. PD-0551-10, 2012 WL 715981, at *1, 6 (Tex. Crim. App. Mar. 7, 2012); Canseco v. State, 199 S.W.3d 437, 438-39 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. ref'd) (citing Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Greer v. State, 999 S.W.2d 484, 486 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. ref'd)). Once the trial court determines the defendant has violated a condition of his community supervision and adjudicates guilt, all proceedings, including assessment of punishment continue as if the adjudication of guilt had not been deferred. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. Art. 42.12, § 5(b) (West 2011). When, as here, the defendant enters a plea of true at an adjudication hearing, the proceeding becomes a unitary proceeding to determine the remaining issue of punishment, and the introduction of testimony is to enable the fact finder to intelligently exercise its discretion in the assessment of punishment. See Carroll v. State, 975 S.W.2d 630, 631-32 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998); State v. Kersh, 2 S.W.3d 636, 638 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999), aff'd on other grounds, 127 S.W.3d 774 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004); Washington v. State, 893 S.W.2d 107, 108 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1995, no pet.). Under article 37.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the State or the defendant may offer any matter the trial court deems relevant to sentencing including the circumstances of the offense for which he is being tried. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. Art. 37.07, § 3(a)(1) (West Supp. 2011),
B. Standard of Review
An appellate court reviews a trial court's ruling on the admission of evidence for an abuse of discretion. Walters v. State, 247 S.W.3d 204, 217 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). Only if the trial court's decision lies "outside the zone of reasonable disagreement" will the appellate court conclude an abuse of discretion occurred. Id. (citation omitted).
C. Application of Law to Facts
Although Jeffries contends the trial court erred in overruling his objection to the prosecutor's questions regarding the facts of the assault because guilt was not at issue at the adjudication hearing, those facts were relevant to the issue of punishment. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. Art. 37.07, § 3(a)(1). Jeffries's plea of "true" to six of the seven allegations in the motion to proceed to adjudication of guilt converted the adjudication hearing into a unitary proceeding. See Kersh, 2 S.W.3d at 638; Washington, 893 S.W.2d at 108. The only issue remaining then was punishment, and evidence of the facts underlying the assault was relevant to that issue. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. Art. 37.07, § 3(a)(1); Carroll, 975 S.W.2d at 632. Because the challenged evidence was relevant, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Jeffries's objection. We resolve Jeffries's first issue against him.
A plea of true, standing alone, is sufficient to support the revocation of community supervision and adjudicate guilt. See Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980); Duncan v. State, 321 S.W.3d 53, 57 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. ref'd) (citing Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979)).
III. Judgment Modification
In his second and third issues, Jeffries complains about recitations in the trial court's judgments. Specifically, in his second issue, he complains the judgment in the sexual assault case incorrectly reflects he pleaded true to the seventh allegation in the motion to adjudicate. In his third issue, he argues the judgment in the failure to register case incorrectly identifies the statute for the offense as article 62.10 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. The State responds that the judgments should be modified as requested by Jeffries.
Under rule of appellate procedure 43.2, we have the authority to correct a trial court's judgment when we have the necessary information to do so. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529-30 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1991, pet. ref'd). The record reflects Jeffries pleaded true to the first six allegations in the motion to adjudicate and "not true" to the seventh allegation. The record further reflects Jeffries was charged for failing to register pursuant to article 62.102, not article 62.10. Accordingly, the record supports modification of each judgment. We decide Jeffries's second and third issues in his favor.
The judgment in the aggravated sexual assault case states simply that Jeffries pleaded "true" to the motion to adjudicate. Accordingly, we modify that judgment to reflect he pleaded "true" to allegations one through six and "not true" to the seventh allegation. We also modify the judgment in the failure to register case to reflect the statute for the offense is article 62.102 of the code of criminal procedure.
IV. Conclusion
As modified, we affirm the trial court's judgments.
DOUGLAS S. LANG
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
110069F.U05
Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
RUBEN DONELL JEFFRIES, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
No. 05-11-00069-CR
Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3 of Dallas County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. F-04- 71516-J).
Opinion delivered by Justice Lang, Justices Bridges and Francis participating.
Based on the Court's opinion of this date, we MODIFY the trial court's judgment adjudicating guilt as follows:
The section entitled "Plea to Motion to Adjudicate" is modified to reflect a plea of "TRUE" to allegations 1-6 and plea of "NOT TRUE" to allegation 7.
As modified, we AFFIRM the trial court's judgment .
Judgment entered August 16, 2012.
DOUGLAS S. LANG
JUSTICE
Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
RUBEN DONELL JEFFRIES, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
No. 05-11-00070-CR
Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 3 of Dallas County, Texas. (Tr.Ct.No. F09- 73128-J).
Opinion delivered by Justice Lang, Justices Bridges and Francis participating.
Based on the Court's opinion of this date, we MODIFY the trial court's judgment as follows:
The section entitled "Statute for Offense" is modified to show "62.102 Code of Criminal Procedure."
As modified, the trial court's judgment is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered August 16, 2012.
DOUGLAS S. LANG
JUSTICE