Opinion
No. 05-16-00764-CR
07-07-2017
JACOBY TAYLOR, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F07-52952-N
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Francis, Brown, and Schenck
Opinion by Justice Schenck
Appellant Jacoby Taylor appeals his conviction for the offense of aggravated robbery causing bodily injury while using or exhibiting a firearm. Appellant waived a jury trial and entered a negotiated guilty plea before the court. Pursuant to that plea agreement, the trial court deferred adjudication of guilt and placed appellant on probation for ten years and assessed a $2,000 fine. Subsequently, the State moved to proceed with an adjudication of guilt, claiming appellant had violated conditions of community supervision. At the revocation hearing, appellant pled true to the alleged probation violations. The trial court accepted appellant's plea of true, adjudicated appellant guilty, and assessed punishment at ten years' confinement. In two issues, appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to prove he violated the conditions of his community supervision as alleged by the State. We affirm the trial court's judgment. Because all issues are settled in the law, we issue this memorandum opinion. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Appellant was indicted for aggravated robbery. He entered a plea of guilty and, pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, the trial court found the evidence sufficient to prove the offense charged, deferred adjudication, and placed appellant on community supervision for ten years. Initially, appellant's probation included eighteen conditions, the first of which required that appellant commit no further offenses during the term of supervision. After appellant was placed on supervision, the State filed five motions to proceed with an adjudication of guilt, four of which resulted in modifications to the conditions of supervision. The modifications required appellant to (1) undergo treatment through the Homeward Bound treatment facility, (2) participate in a court-approved outpatient substance abuse counseling program, (3) serve 180 days in jail as a condition to reinstatement on community supervision, and (4) within 30 days from referral, participate in a domestic violence treatment program (BIPP) through a court-approved resource.
In its fifth motion to proceed with adjudication of guilt, the State alleged appellant violated the laws of the State of Texas by committing two offenses of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and by committing the offense of possession of a controlled substance greater than one gram, and by failing to complete the BIPP class as directed. At the adjudication hearing, the State withdrew the aggravated assault with a deadly weapon offenses as grounds for proceeding to adjudication. Appellant thereafter stated the allegations he possessed a controlled substance and failed to complete BIPP as directed were true. The trial court then briefly recessed the hearing to allow appellant the opportunity to complete a plea of true form. Upon reconvening, the trial court stated:
The Court has before it a plea of true, an open plea of true, signed by defense counsel, the defendant, and consented to and approved by the State, and the Court will now approve the same since it's in writing, a stipulation in the form provided by law. The Court is clear in that this is a written plea of true by the defendant and is not a plea bargain agreement.Defense counsel confirmed that appellant was pleading true without the benefit of a plea agreement, and appellant confirmed that he was pleading true freely and voluntarily. The State then offered, and the trial court admitted without objection, appellant's signed written voluntary plea of true to violating conditions of his community supervision and judicial confession and stipulation of evidence. The parties rested on the issue of guilt and the State proceeded to call three witnesses on the issue of punishment who testified to the allegations in the State's motion. The trial court adjudicated appellant guilty of aggravated robbery and sentenced him to ten years' confinement. This appeal followed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A trial court's decision to revoke community supervision is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). The record will support a finding of an abuse of discretion "only when the trial judge's 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).
The State's burden of proof at a revocation hearing is to show by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant violated the terms of his community supervision, meaning that the greater weight of the credible evidence must create a reasonable belief that the defendant has violated a condition of his probation. Rickels, 202 S.W.3d at 764. "The State's burden of proof informs the appellate standard of review for legal sufficiency of the evidence." Hacker v. State, 389 S.W.3d 860, 865 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). Thus, when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence in a revocation proceeding, a reviewing court need only determine whether the trial court abused its discretion. Id.
DISCUSSION
Appellant pled true and judicially confessed and stipulated he violated two of the conditions of his community supervision by possessing a controlled substance greater than one gram and failing to complete a BIPP class. A plea of true to an allegation that a defendant has violated a condition of his community supervision is sufficient to support the revocation of community supervision and adjudicate guilt. Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979). Further, during the evidentiary hearing, the State called two police officers and a probation officer who testified to each of the two allegations contained in the motion. See Parker v. State, No. 05-13-01535-CR, 2014 WL 7497800, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 29, 2014, no pet.)(not designated for publication) (citing Barfield v. State, 63 S.W.3d 446, 451 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (probation revocation hearings are unitary proceedings, which means the decision of the trial court is not fixed until it renders judgment on guilt and punishment after all the evidence and arguments have been heard)).
In this case, the trial court revoked appellant's community supervision because he pled true to the State's allegation that he committed an offense by possessing a controlled substance greater than one gram and failed to complete a BIPP class and because the State called witnesses during the evidentiary hearing who testified to the allegations contained in the motion to proceed with an adjudication of guilt. Appellant's written voluntary pleas of true to violating conditions of his community supervision and judicial confession and stipulation of evidence, and the evidence offered during the hearing, are sufficient to prove appellant violated the conditions of his community supervision. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding appellant guilty and assessing a ten year sentence. We overrule appellant's issues.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court's judgment.
/David J. Schenck/
DAVID J. SCHENCK
JUSTICE DO NOT PUBLISH
TEX. R. APP. P. 47 160764F.U05
JUDGMENT
On Appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F07-52952-N.
Opinion delivered by Justice Schenck, Justices Francis and Brown participating.
Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered this 7th day of July, 2017.