Gregory Isaacs John v. State ( 2018 )

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-17-00372-CR
GREGORY ISAACS JOHN APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. 1294827D
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
The trial court revoked appellant Gregory Isaacs John’s community
supervision and adjudicated his guilt for burglary of a habitation 2 while finding
that he had violated three community supervision conditions: he committed a
new offense, he failed to complete a court-ordered program, and he failed to
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2
See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 30.02(a)(1) (West Supp. 2017).
report to his community supervision officer. On appeal from his conviction, John
contends that the trial court violated his right of due process by failing to
admonish him about the consequences of pleading “true” to the second and third
violations, but he does not challenge the trial court’s finding that he committed a
new offense. Because John does not contest all grounds upon which the trial
court revoked his community supervision and adjudicated his guilt, we overrule
his sole point and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Background
A grand jury indicted John for burglary of a habitation. He pleaded guilty
and judicially confessed to committing the offense. The trial court deferred its
adjudication of his guilt, placed him on community supervision for five years, and
imposed several conditions.
Within the five-year term, the State filed a petition for the trial court to
adjudicate John’s guilt. The State alleged that he had violated conditions of his
community supervision by committing a new offense (another burglary), by failing
to successfully complete a court-ordered program, and by failing to report to his
community supervision officer over the course of several months. On the record
at the revocation hearing, John pled “not true” to the first allegation and “true” to
the second and third allegations. The trial court did not give him admonishments
about his pleas of true on the record at the hearing.
The State presented testimony from Nizar Kotadia, the owner of a
convenience store in Euless. According to Kotadia, one early morning in 2016,
2
before the store opened, someone broke into it and stole cigarettes, condoms,
cash, and earphones. After a burglary alarm sounded, the police promptly
arrived at the store, detained John, and found several condoms along with
cigarette paper in his pockets. The store’s surveillance video showed that during
the burglary, John acted as a “lookout” while another man broke into the store
and stole merchandise.
The trial court found all three of the State’s allegations true and
adjudicated John’s guilt for burglary of a habitation. After receiving evidence on
the issue of his punishment, the trial court sentenced him to ten years’
confinement. He brought this appeal.
Unchallenged Basis for Revocation
In one point, John argues that the trial court violated his right of due
process by failing to admonish him about the consequences of his pleas of true,
rendering those pleas unknowing and involuntary. John does not, however,
contest the trial court’s finding that he violated a community supervision condition
by committing another burglary.
We review a trial court’s decision to revoke a defendant’s community
supervision and to adjudicate guilt for an abuse of discretion. Powe v. State, 436
S.W.3d 91, 93 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2014, pet. ref’d). Proof of a single
violation suffices to support revocation. Garcia v. State, 387 S.W.3d 20, 26 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2012); Leach v. State, 170 S.W.3d 669, 672 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth
2005, pet. ref’d) (“Proof by a preponderance of the evidence of any one of the
3
alleged violations of the conditions of community supervision is sufficient to
support a revocation order.”). Thus, we cannot hold that a trial court’s revocation
and adjudication decisions constitute an abuse of discretion when an appellant
does not challenge all grounds on which the trial court based those decisions.
See Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980)
(“The appellant has failed to raise any contentions concerning the finding that he
committed the offense of escape. Nor does our review reveal any error. We
need not address appellant’s other contentions since one sufficient ground for
revocation will support the court’s order to revoke probation.”); Wallace v. State,
No. 06-16-00214-CR, 2017 WL 1437164, at *2 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Apr. 21,
2017, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (“[W]e hold that Wallace
has failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his
community supervision based on the unchallenged grounds.”); Garcia v. State,
No. 02-15-00138-CR, 2017 WL 370924, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan. 26,
2017, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (“When the trial court
finds several violations, we will affirm a revocation order if the State proved any
one of them by a preponderance of the evidence. As a corollary, the trial court’s
judgment should be affirmed if the appellant does not challenge each ground on
which the trial court revoked community supervision.” (citations omitted)).
John does not challenge the trial court’s revocation and adjudication
decisions on the basis of the court’s finding that he violated a condition of his
community supervision by committing a new offense. Thus, we hold that the trial
4
court did not abuse its discretion by revoking his community supervision and by
adjudicating his guilt on that violation, and we overrule his sole point of error,
which concerns other alleged violations, as moot. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1;
Moore, 605 S.W.2d at 926; Garcia, 2017 WL 370924, at *2 (“Because we can
affirm the trial court’s judgment based on the unchallenged paragraph C finding,
any putative error in connection with the paragraph A finding becomes moot.”).
Conclusion
Having overruled John’s sole point, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
/s/ Wade Birdwell
WADE BIRDWELL
JUSTICE
PANEL: SUDDERTH, C.J.; MEIER AND BIRDWELL, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: July 19, 2018
5