Michael William Brown v. State ( 2013 )

COURT OF APPEALS
EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO, TEXAS
MICHAEL WILLIAM BROWN, '
No. 08-11-00230-CR
Appellant, '
Appeal from the
v. '
396th District Court
THE STATE OF TEXAS, '
of Tarrant County, Texas
'
Appellee.
' (TC#0900094D)
OPINION
Appellant Michael William Brown appeals from a judgment revoking his community
supervision. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
On August 4, 2004, pursuant to a plea bargain, Appellant pleaded guilty to the offense of
burglary of a habitation. The trial court placed Appellant on ten years’ deferred adjudication
community supervision. As part of his community supervision, Appellant was required to
commit no offense against the laws of the State of Texas or of any State or of the United States,
avoid having any unsupervised contact with children under the age of fifteen, and report monthly
to a community supervision officer.
On August 16, 2010, the State filed a petition to proceed to adjudication alleging four
violations of the terms and conditions of community supervision by Appellant. Specifically,
the State’s petition alleged that Appellant violated his community supervision by: (1) unlawfully
recording a visual image of another in a private location without her consent with the intent to
arouse or satisfy his sexual desire; (2) failing to report to his community supervision officer in
March 2008; (3) failing to pay several probation fees; and (4) having unsupervised contact with a
thirteen-year old minor. At the revocation hearing, on June 2, 2011, Appellant pleaded “not
true” to the allegation in paragraph 1 and pleaded “true” to the allegations in paragraphs 2
through 4. The trial court found the four alleged violations to be true and found Appellant
guilty of burglary of a habitation.
The next day, at the hearing on the State’s petition to proceed to adjudication, Appellant
withdrew his pleas of “true” and pleaded “not true” to all allegations. At that time, the State
re-opened and waived the alleged violation in paragraph 3. At the hearing, Maria Luna, the
senior court officer for the Community Supervision and Corrections Department, testified that
Appellant failed to report to his probation officer in March 2008, in violation of his probation.
At the hearing, the trial court took judicial notice that Appellant was ordered to have no
unsupervised contact with children under the age of fifteen. The State reoffered all the
evidence presented during the revocation hearing.1 The trial court found Appellant violated the
terms and conditions of his probation as alleged in paragraphs 1, 2, and 4 of the State’s petition
and found him guilty of the offense of burglary of a habitation. The trial court sentenced
Appellant to ten years’ confinement. This appeal followed.
REVOCATION OF COMMUNITY SUPERVISION
Standard of Review
We review a trial court’s decision to revoke community supervision for an abuse of
discretion. Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). The State must show
the alleged violations of the trial court’s order by a preponderance of the evidence. Cobb v. State,
851 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). There is a preponderance of the evidence if the
1
This included testimony from Appellant’s ex-girlfriend’s fourteen-year-old daughter who testified that on April 26,
2010, she was home alone with Appellant because her mom was in jail.
2
greater weight of the credible evidence creates a reasonable belief that the defendant has violated a
condition of his community supervision. Rickels, 202 S.W.3d at 763-64. In a revocation
hearing, the trial court is the sole trier of fact and determines the credibility of the witnesses and
weight to be given their testimony. Allbright v. State, 13 S.W.3d 817, 818-19 (Tex. App. – Fort
Worth 2000, pet. ref’d). On appeal, we view evidence presented at the revocation hearing in a
light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling. Garrett v. State, 619 S.W.2d 172, 174 (Tex. Crim.
App. [Panel Op.] 1981); Martinez v. State, 130 S.W.3d 95, 97 (Tex. App. – El Paso 2003, no pet.).
When more than one violation of the conditions of community supervision is found by the trial
court, the revocation order must be affirmed if a single ground supports the trial court’s order.
Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980).
DISCUSSION
In two issues, Appellant challenges the trial court’s revocation of his community
supervision alleging that the trial court erred: (1) in admitting and considering photographs at
punishment that were not affirmatively linked to Appellant; and (2) in admitting evidence obtained
from an illegal search of Appellant’s computer. We need not address these contentions because
there is sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that Appellant violated the terms
and conditions of his community supervision. See Moore, 605 S.W.2d at 926; see also Balli v.
State, 530 S.W.2d 123, 126 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975).
The evidence at trial showed that Appellant failed to report to his community supervision
officer in March 2008, in violation of the terms and conditions of his community supervision.
The evidence further established that on April 26, 2010, Appellant was home alone with a child
under the age of fifteen. Under the terms and conditions of his community supervision, Appellant
was required not to have any unsupervised contact with children under the age of fifteen.
3
Appellant did not dispute that he failed to report to his probation officer or that he had
unsupervised contact with a child under the age of fifteen.
When viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, the evidence presented
at trial supports the trial court’s order finding Appellant violated the terms and conditions of
community supervision, adjudicating him guilty of burglary of a habitation, and revoking his
community supervision. Garrett, 619 S.W.2d at 174; Martinez, 130 S.W.3d at 97.
A single violation of a condition of community supervision is sufficient to support a trial
court’s revocation order. See Moore, 605 S.W.2d at 926. Because there are at least two valid
grounds to justify the trial court’s revocation order, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in revoking Appellant’s community supervision. See id; Rickels, 202 S.W.3d at
763-64. Issues One and Two are overruled.
CONCLUSION
The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice
January 16, 2013
Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Antcliff, JJ.
Antcliff, J., not participating
(Do Not Publish)
4