James Gavin Overloon v. the State of Texas ( 2021 )

Affirm; Opinion Filed October 8, 2021
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-20-00249-CR
JAMES GAVIN OVERLOON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F18-00354-U
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Schenck, Smith, and Garcia
Opinion by Justice Schenck
James Gavin Overloon appeals his conviction for sexual assault. In thirteen
issues, appellant argues the trial court erred by finding each of the State’s allegations
true in its motion for revocation of community supervision and adjudication of guilt
and abused its discretion by revoking his community supervision. 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.
BACKGROUND
On May 30, 2019, appellant waived his right to a jury trial and plead guilty to
the offense of sexual assault. The judge found the evidence sufficient to prove the
offense charged, deferred adjudication, and placed appellant on community
supervision for ten years. In August 2019, the State filed, and later that month
removed, its first motion to revoke community supervision and to proceed with
adjudication of guilt. In January 2020, the State filed its second motion to revoke
community supervision and to proceed with adjudication of guilt. The following
month, the trial court conducted a hearing on the State’s motion. At the end of the
hearing, the judge ruled that appellant had violated numerous conditions of his
community supervision, granted the State’s motion, and assessed punishment at
nineteen years’ confinement. Appellant filed a motion for new trial, which was
denied, and then his notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
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. See
Hacker v. State, 389 S.W.3d 860, 864–65 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). Proof of any one
violation is sufficient to support revocation. Dansby v. State, 468 S.W.3d 225, 231
(Tex. App.—Dallas 2015, no pet.). If the trial court determines the State’s
allegations are true and that sufficient evidence supports that determination, the court
has discretion to continue, modify, or revoke community supervision. See id. If the
–2–
State fails to meet its burden of proof, the trial court abuses its discretion by revoking
the community supervision. See id.In his eleventh issue, appellant urges the evidence was insufficient to support
the trial court’s finding as true the State’s allegation that he failed to adhere to curfew
hours. The conditions of appellant’s community supervision required him to remain
in his place of residence from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. each day of the week. At the
hearing on the State’s motion to revoke, appellant’s community supervision officer
testified that on November 30, 2019, appellant left the officer a voicemail at
2:00 a.m. stating he “was out late doing some shopping.” We conclude this evidence
supports the trial court’s finding appellant failed to adhere to curfew hours.1 Because
we conclude the evidence is sufficient to support this one violation, we may affirm
the trial court’s judgment without addressing appellant’s remaining issues. See
Dansby v. State, 468 S.W.3d at 231. There are, of course, many others, consideration
of which we pretermit. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1.
1
Even if appellant were shopping online from his residence, such evidence would support another of
the State’s allegations, which was that appellant accessed the internet in violation of the conditions of his
community supervision. Appellant challenged that finding in his tenth issue on appeal.
–3–
CONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
/David J. Schenck/
DAVID J. SCHENCK
JUSTICE
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47
200249F.U05
–4–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
JAMES GAVIN OVERLOON, On Appeal from the 291st Judicial
Appellant District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F18-00354-U.
No. 05-20-00249-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice
Schenck. Justices Smith and Garcia
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 8th day of October, 2021.
–5–