From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Taylor v. State

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
Jun 21, 2017
NO. 09-16-00342-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 21, 2017)

Opinion

NO. 09-16-00342-CR

06-21-2017

MILTON PERRY TAYLOR, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee


On Appeal from the 221st District Court Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 15-09-09835-CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Milton Perry Taylor appeals from the trial court's judgment revoking his deferred adjudication community supervision for the offense of continuous assault family violence. In his sole appellate issue, Taylor challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court's revocation of his deferred adjudication community supervision. We affirm the trial court's judgment.

Taylor pleaded guilty to the third-degree felony offense of continuous assault family violence. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 25.11(e) (West 2011). The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Taylor guilty, but deferred further proceedings and, on October 1, 2015, the trial judge signed an order placing Taylor on community supervision for five years. The State subsequently filed an amended motion to adjudicate, in which it alleged thirteen violations of the terms of Taylor's community supervision.

At the hearing on the State's motion to adjudicate, the State abandoned five of the alleged violations, Taylor pleaded "not true" to the remaining alleged violations, which included use of alcohol or controlled substances on May 28, 2016; failure to complete a course in the Batterer Intervention Program ("BIPP"); failure to perform the required amount of community service; failure to avoid contact with the victim; failure to make required installment payments for court costs, court-appointed attorney's fees, restitution, and fines; failure to timely pay supervisory fees; failure to pay the Crime Stoppers fee; and failure to pay urinalysis fees. The trial court then conducted an evidentiary hearing.

Montgomery County probation officer Juanita Calderon testified that Taylor failed to complete the required BIPP course and failed to perform the required community service hours for November 2015, December 2015, January 2016, and March, April, and May 2016. Calderon also testified that Taylor had asserted that he was having financial difficulties, and that Taylor did not make his installment payments for court costs, court-appointed attorney's fees, restitution, and fines; did not pay his supervisory fees; did not pay his Crime Stoppers fee; and did not pay his urinalysis fees. In addition, Calderon testified that Taylor had failed to avoid contact with the victim.

Officer Gerald Collins of the Huntsville Police Department testified that he encountered Taylor on May 28, 2016, when Collins was dispatched to a fight that was in progress at an apartment complex. Collins explained that when he got out of his patrol vehicle, he saw a male and a female physically fighting and swinging at each other with closed fists, and he identified the male as Taylor and the female as the victim Taylor was prohibited to contact. Collins testified that Taylor displayed signs of intoxication, including red, glassy eyes and slurred speech, and Taylor smelled strongly of alcohol. Collins explained that he arrested both Taylor and the victim for assault family violence. After the evidentiary hearing concluded, the trial judge found the eight alleged violations true, found Taylor guilty, and sentenced Taylor to seven years of confinement.

As previously discussed, in his sole appellate issue, Taylor contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the trial court's revocation of his deferred adjudication community supervision. Specifically, Taylor argues that because of his financial difficulties, the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his community supervision, and he also asserts that he did not violate the prohibition against offensive contact with the victim because the victim did not testify that she found the contact offensive.

We review a trial court's order revoking probation for abuse of discretion. Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). At a revocation hearing, the State has the burden to establish the alleged violations by a preponderance of the evidence. Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763-64 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). The trial court is the sole trier of facts and the sole judge of the credibility of witnesses, and the trial court decides what weight to give to the testimony. Cochran v. State, 78 S.W.3d 20, 28 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2002, no pet.). The trial court abuses its discretion only if its decision "was so clearly wrong as to lie outside that zone within which reasonable persons might disagree." Cantu v. State, 842 S.W.2d 667, 682 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling. Cardon, 665 S.W.2d at 493. Proof of a violation of a single condition of community supervision is sufficient to support a trial court's decision to revoke. Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980).

As discussed above, the trial court heard evidence that Taylor failed to complete the required BIPP course, failed to perform the required number of community service hours, failed to avoid consuming alcohol, and not only failed to avoid contact with the victim, but engaged in a physical altercation with the victim while he was on probation. We conclude that, independent of the alleged violations related to Taylor's financial obligations, the evidence was legally sufficient to support the trial court's finding that Taylor violated the conditions of his community supervision. See Moore, 605 S.W.2d at 926. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by revoking Taylor's community supervision. We overrule Taylor's sole issue and affirm the trial court's judgment.

AFFIRMED.

/s/_________

STEVE McKEITHEN

Chief Justice Submitted on June 14, 2017
Opinion Delivered June 21, 2017
Do Not Publish Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.


Summaries of

Taylor v. State

Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
Jun 21, 2017
NO. 09-16-00342-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 21, 2017)
Case details for

Taylor v. State

Case Details

Full title:MILTON PERRY TAYLOR, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

Date published: Jun 21, 2017

Citations

NO. 09-16-00342-CR (Tex. App. Jun. 21, 2017)