Robin Hubbert v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 124th District Court of Gregg County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 6th District Court of Appeals » 2003 » Robin Hubbert v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 124th District Court of Gregg County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 06-03-00207-CR

Case Date: 11/14/2003

Plaintiff: Francis Quintero

Defendant: Candelerio Quintero--Appeal from County Court at Law of Cherokee County

Preview:James Wright Davis v. The State of Texas--Appeal from
County Crim Ct No 7 of Tarrant County
IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-05-00029-CR
James Wright Davis,
Appellant
v.
The State of Texas,
Appellee
From the County Criminal Court No. 7
Tarrant County, Texas
Trial Court No. 0855381
Opinion
James Wright Davis appeals from the revocation of his community supervision for cruelty to animals. He contends in
his sole issue that the court abused its discretion by permitting the State to introduce evidence during the revocation
hearing regarding the offense for which he was placed on community supervision. We will affirm.
The revocation motion alleged only technical violations : failure to report, failure to pay fees, and failure to perform
community service. Davis pleaded true to the allegations that he failed to report and failed to perform the required
community service hours.
The State called a community supervision officer who testified about Davis s failure to comply with the terms of his
community supervision as alleged in the revocation motion. The State then called two witnesses who testified over
Davis s objection to the facts of the cruelty to animals charge for which Davis had been placed on community
supervision.
Davis contends that this was improper because this evidence was irrelevant to the allegations in the revocation motion
and because the State was essentially permitted to have two sentencing hearings without statutory authority.
The Rules of Evidence generally apply to revocation proceedings. Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1993); Stevens v. State, 900 S.W.2d 348, 351 (Tex. App. Texarkana 1995, pet. ref d). Rule 401 defines evidence
as relevant if it has any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the
action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Tex. R. Evid. 401.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/6950.html[8/20/2013 7:22:08 PM]

At a revocation hearing, there are several potential issues to be resolved:
(1) whether the allegations of the revocation motion are true, which the State must prove by a preponderance of the
evidence; see Moreno v. State, 22 S.W.3d 482, 488 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Quisenberry v. State, 88 S.W.3d 745, 749
(Tex. App. Waco 2002, pet. ref d);
(2) whether the defendant failed to meet the financial obligations of his community supervision because of an inability
to pay, which the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence; see Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art.
42.12, 21(c) (Vernon Supp. 2005); Quisenberry, 88 S.W.3d at 749;
(3) if a violation is found, whether the community supervision should be continued, extended, modified, or revoked; id.
art. 42.12, 21(b) (Vernon Supp. 2005); and
(4) if community supervision is revoked, whether the sentence should be reduced. Id. art. 42.12, 23(a) (Vernon Supp.
2005).
Here, the primary issue for the court to resolve was whether Davis s original sentence of 365 days should be reduced.
Article 42.12, section 23(a) permits a court to reduce the original sentence upon revocation if the court determines that
the best interests of society and the defendant would be served by a shorter term of confinement.
To the extent that a trial court is called upon to consider reducing a defendant s sentence upon revocation of
community supervision, we hold that the facts of the underlying offense for which the defendant was placed on
community supervision would have some tendency to make it more or less probable that the best interests of society
would be served by a reduced sentence. See Tex. R. Evid. 401. Thus, the facts of the underlying offense are relevant in
a revocation proceeding.
Davis also contends that, by permitting the State to introduce evidence of the facts regarding the underlying offense,
the State was essentially permitted to have two sentencing hearings without statutory authority. We disagree.
Because article 42.12, section 23(a) permits a court to consider reducing the defendant s sentence upon revocation, this
statute plainly provides authority for a second sentencing hearing. Thus, we hold that the prosecution need not stand
mute when the defendant presents evidence and/or argument to justify a reduced sentence in a revocation hearing.
Rather, the State may present any evidence relevant to sentencing. Cf. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 37.07, 3(a)
(Vernon Supp. 2005).[1]
Accordingly, we overrule Davis s sole issue and affirm the judgment.
FELIPE REYNA
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Vance, and
Justice Reyna
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed November 2, 2005
Publish
[CR25]
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/6950.html[8/20/2013 7:22:08 PM]

[1] Although article 37.07, 3(a) provides a useful analogy for the type of evidence relevant to sentencing in a
revocation hearing, we do agree with Davis s assertion that this statute does not apply to a revocation hearing.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/6950.html[8/20/2013 7:22:08 PM]

Download 6950.pdf