Ibraheim Kadar Stroggins v. State ( 2020 )

AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed April 2, 2020
S
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-19-00022-CR
No. 05-19-00023-CR
IBRAHEIM KADAR STROGGINS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. F12-72353-Q; F12-61723-Q
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Bridges, Molberg, and Partida-Kipness
Opinion by Justice Bridges
Ibraheim Kadar Stroggins appeals his aggravated robbery conviction in cause
number 05-19-00022-CV and his burglary with intent to commit robbery conviction
in cause number 05-19-00023-CV. The trial court adjudicated appellant’s guilt and
sentenced him to fifteen years’ confinement in each case. In two issues, appellant
argues the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him to fifteen years’
confinement because that punishment violates the objectives of the penal code. We
affirm the trial court’s judgments.
In late 2012, appellant was charged by indictment with the underlying
offenses. At a hearing in May 2015, appellant entered a guilty plea to each offense.
Appellant testified he ran into his cousin and another man at a bus station. The three
went to a house they had heard contained “dope and money.” Appellant testified he
did not have a gun, and “all [he] did was grab stuff in the house.” Appellant also
testified he was in the room while a girl in the house was being raped by one of his
accomplices. In response to questioning, appellant testified that he had been in jail
most of the time these cases were pending except for three months when appellant
was released and put “on the monitor.” However, appellant “violated [his] monitor”
and went back to jail. Appellant testified he understood that, if the judge gave him
deferred adjudication and he “messed up,” he could come back and the judge could
give him “life in prison.” The trial court placed appellant on deferred adjudication
community supervision for a period of ten years in each case. In September 2017,
the State filed a motion to revoke appellant’s probation and proceed with an
adjudication of guilt in each case, alleging, among other things, that appellant had
failed to report to the community supervision office in June, July, or August 2017.
In October 2017, at a hearing before the same judge who had placed appellant on
community supervision, the trial judge admonished appellant that he “would be
looking at prison time” if he continued to fail to report. The State filed a motion to
withdraw its motions to revoke and proceed with adjudication, and the trial court
granted the motions and continued appellant on probation.
–2–
In July 2018, the State again filed motions to adjudicate alleging, among other
things, appellant failed to report to the community supervision office in March,
April, and June 2018. At a hearing on the motions, appellant entered pleas of true
to the allegations in the motions and admitted that he was the same individual who
was placed on community supervision. Appellant testified he worked in landscaping
and could not always report, but his probation officer told him keeping in contact
was “the only thing” that he had to do. Appellant testified he kept in contact or left
a message on the answering machine. Appellant testified he told his employer he
was on probation, and his employer told him not to come into work on the days he
had to go to his probation appointments. Appellant admitted he tested positive for
marijuana in May 2018, but the positive test resulted from an “accident” in which
appellant ate an “edible” at a party. The trial court stated a note from appellant’s
probation officer said appellant had not contacted his probation officer for eighty-
nine days. The trial court also noted appellant had “tested positive for weed so many
times,” the court sent him to a class, but appellant “was still testing positive.” The
trial court adjudicated appellant guilty of each offense and sentenced him to fifteen
years’ confinement in each case. These appeals followed.
In two issues, appellant argues his fifteen-year sentence in each case violates
the objectives of the Texas Penal Code. Specifically, appellant argues that, given
his youth and the minor nature of his violations, the trial court abused its discretion
–3–
in sentencing him to fifteen years in the penitentiary instead of continuing him on
community supervision.
We give a great deal of discretion to a trial judge’s determination of the
appropriate punishment in any given case. Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809, 814
(Tex. Crim. App. 1984); Foster v. State, 525 S.W.3d 898, 911 (Tex. App.—Dallas
2017, pet. ref’d). Additionally, the general rule is that as long as a sentence is within
the proper range of punishment, it will not be disturbed on appeal. Jackson, 680
S.W.2d at 814; Foster, 525 S.W.3d at 911.
Aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon and burglary with intent to commit
a felony are both first-degree felonies punishable by imprisonment for 5 to 99 years
and an optional fine not to exceed $10,000. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 12.32,
29.03(b), 30.02(d).
Appellant’s fifteen-year sentence in each case was well within the proper
range of punishment. See Jackson, 680 S.W.2d at 814; Foster, 525 S.W.3d at 911.
Appellant emphasizes the “minor nature of his violations,” presumably the
violations of the conditions of his community supervision. However, appellant
ignores the fact that he failed to report to the community supervision office for
months at a time, despite being given a second chance and placed back on
community supervision after he repeatedly failed to report in 2017.
Appellant further cites Jackson for the proposition that there must be evidence
or facts available to the court and upon which the court could have relied in assessing
–4–
punishment. See Jackson, 680 S.W.2d at 814. The facts before the court were that
appellant went to a residence with two accomplices and “grab[bed] stuff.” Appellant
was in the room when one of his accomplices raped a girl in the residence. Appellant
was temporarily released “on the monitor,” but he violated the terms of his release
and went back to jail. When placed on community supervision, appellant failed to
report for months at a time, leading the State to file a motion to revoke. The trial
judge held a hearing and ultimately gave appellant another chance at community
supervision. Again, appellant failed to report for months at a time. Under the facts
and circumstances of this case, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion
in imposing a fifteen-year sentence in each case. See Jackson, 680 S.W.2d at 814;
Foster, 525 S.W.3d at 911. Moreover, we cannot conclude appellant’s sentences
violate the objectives of the Texas Penal Code. See Jackson, 680 S.W.2d at 814.
We overrule appellant’s first and second issues.
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
/David L. Bridges/
DAVID L. BRIDGES
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
190022F.U05
–5–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
IBRAHEIM KADAR STROGGINS, On Appeal from the 204th Judicial
Appellant District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F12-72353-Q.
No. 05-19-00022-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges.
Justices Molberg and Partida-Kipness
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 April 2, 2020
–6–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
IBRAHEIM KADAR STROGGINS, On Appeal from the 204th Judicial
Appellant District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F12-61723-Q.
No. 05-19-00023-CR V. Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges.
Justices Molberg and Partida-Kipness
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 April 2, 2020
–7–