1
... S ee Te x. R. App
. P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OFAPPEA LS SE COND DIST RIC TOF TE XAS FORT WORTH NO
. 2- 09- 330- CR
DE R I CK E UGE NE S L OAN AP P E L L ANT V
. TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 90TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F YO UN G CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### MEMOR A ND UM OP I NI ON 1

----- ----- -- I
. I nt roduc t i on A ppel l antD er i ck Eugen e Sl oan app ea l s t he t r i al court ’ s order a dju d ic a t in g h im g u ilty a ft e r fin d in g t h a th e h a d v io la t e d c o n d it io n s o f h is defer red adj udi ca ti on com m uni ty super vi si on. I n one i ssue, Sl oan argues t hatt he t r i al courtabused i t s di scret i on by adj u d i c a ti n g hi m gui l ty because2

t he evi den ce t hathe vi ol at ed hi s co m m uni ty s upe r vi si on w asl ega l l y a nd fa c tu a l l y i n s u fficie n t. W e a ffirm .

I I
. Fa ct ual an d Proce dural Bac kground S l oan pl eaded gu i l ty t o a g gravat ed assaul tw i t h a w eapon and recei ved fi ve years’ defer red adj udi cat i on com m uni ty super vi si on and a $7 50 fi ne. The S t ate m ove d t o a dj udi ca t e, argui ng t hatSl oan ha d vi ol at ed fi ve c o n d i ti o n s o f h is co m m u n i ty s u p e rvi sion b y ( 1 ) c o m m i tti n g tw o o f fe n s e s — fle e in g fro m a p e a c e o f f i c e r a n d re fu s in g t o g iv e t h e o f fic e r h is i den t i f yi ng i nfor m at i on; ( 2) fai l i ng t o repo rti n pe rso n t o t he su per vi si on o f fi cer for tw o consecuti ve m onths; ( 3) fai l i ng t o pay app ropr i at e courtcosts fo r a t o t a l o f

fift e e n m o n t h s ; ( 4 ) fa ilin g t o s u b m i tm o n t h ly p a y m e n t s o n h is $ 7 5 0 fin e fo r

a t o t a l o f

tw e lv e m o n t h s ; a n d ( 5 ) fa ilin g t o p a y h is m o n t h ly c o m m u n i ty s u p e rv i s i o n fe e fo r a to ta l o f fi fte e n m o n th s . A tt he hea r i ng on t he S t ate’ s m ot i on t o a dj udi ca t e, Sl oan pl ea ded not t rue t o al l of

t h e a l l e g a t i ons i n t he S t at e’ s m ot i on. Regardi ng t he fi rst vi ol at i on of com m uni ty super vi si on al l eged by t he S t at e— th a t Sl oan fl ed an of fi ce r an d refus ed t o i de nt i f y hi m se l f

— O f fi ce r N oah Bragg , Const abl e f or P a lo P in t o C o u n ty , t e s t ifie d t h a to n N o v e m b e r 6 , 2 0 0 8 , S lo a n in t e n t io n a lly refused t o gi ve t he offi cer i denti fi cat i on w hi l e he w as t r yi ng t o l aw ful l y ar rest Sl oan . Spec i fi ca l l y, Sl oan pa ss ed t he of fi cer goi ng s i xty m i l espe r hour i n a3

forty- fi ve m i l e- per - hour z one on a red “n i nj a- styl e” m ot orcycl e; O f fi ce r Bragg i m m edi at el y a ct i va t ed hi s ove r hea d l i ght s and proce ede d t o go aft er Sl oan . H ow eve r , O f

fi ce r Bragg co ul d notca t ch Sl oan , w ho c ont i nu ed t o ga i n s pee d, a n d th e o ffice r b e l i e v e d a t th a t p o i n t th a t S l o a n w a s fl e e i n g fro m h i m . O f fi cer Bra g g event ual l y saw t he m ot orcycl e par ked outs i de of a gas st at i on, pul l ed i n behi nd t he m ot orcycl e t o i nvest i gat e, and t h e n n ot i ced Sl oan ex i t i ng t he st at i on ’ s conven i enc e s t ore. He app roac hed Sl oan , i denti fi ed hi m sel f

as t he offi cer w h o m Sl oan had passed ear l i er , and asked Sl oa n t o re m o v e h i s h e l m e ta n d p ro d u c e i d e n t i fi c a t i o n . S l o a n re fu s e d , p ut gas i n t he m ot orcycl e, and t hen st art ed t he engi ne. O f fi cer Brag g ran over t o t he m ot orcyc l e, grabb ed t he ke ys , an d a sk ed Sl oan t o s t ep bac k from t he m ot orcycl e and produ ce i denti fi cat i on. Sl oan re fused agai n, dem anded t hat O ffi c e r B rag g retu rn h i s k e y s , a n d sl a m m e d O ffi c e r B rag g ’s tru c k d o o r sh u t, p revent i ng O f

fi cer Bragg from accessi ng hi s radi o. O f fi cer Bragg t ol d S l oan t hathe w a s under ar rest , and S l oan ran. G raham Pol i ce O f fi cer C asey S c o b e e e v e n tu a l l y c a u g h t S l o a n , a n d w i th th e a s s i s ta n c e o f a n o th e r o ffice r, h a n d c u ffe d S l o a n a n d p l a c e d h i m i n th e b a c k o f h i s p a tro l u n i t. C i ndy C ol l i nsal so t es t i fi ed for t he St at e rega rdi ng t he of fens e a nd exp l ai ned t hats he had obs er ved Sl oan, h er e x- hus ban d, pa ssO f fi ce r Bragg and ha d late r s een S l oan i n t he back of a pol i ce car . H ow ever , Sl oan4

t es t i fi ed t hati tw asnothi m w ho ha d s ped pa stO ff i ce r Bragg t hatda y a nd t hat O f fi ce r Bragg had nev er as ke d hi m for hi s nam e, but had onl y as ke d for hi s dr i ver’ s l i cense, w hi ch he coul d not fi nd. S l o a n a l so t est i fi ed t hatO f fi cer Bragg ne ver

as ke d hi m t o rem ove hi s hel m et , t hatSl oan ne ver s l am m ed t he d o o r s h u to n O f

fic e r B ra g g ’s t r u c k , a n d t h a th is h a n d s w e re in fro n to f h im t he w hol e t i m e. W hen ask e d hi s reason for runn i ng, Sl oan t est i fi ed t hat O f fi cer Bragg di d not have hi s l i ghts on, t hat he di d not know w hy O ffi c er B ra g g w a s th e re , a n d th a t h e h a d a ro u g h p a s t w i th th e p o l i c e . Regardi ng t he se con d vi ol at i on, fai l ure t o repo rti n pe rso n, St eve Ri chi e, Sl oan ’ s com m uni ty s upe r vi si on of

fi ce r , t es t i fi ed t hatSl oa n di d not repo rti n pe rso n i n Sept em ber or O ct ober

2 0 0 8. Ri chi e fi l ed a v i ol at i on rep o rtw i th the d i stri c t atto rne y ’s o ffi c e . S l o a n tes ti fi e d tha t he tr i e d to con t ac tRi chi e t o res che dul e a n a ppoi nt m entbutt hatRi chi e w ason v ac at i on a n d w o u l d n e v e r retu rn h i s c a l l s. S l o a n tes ti fi e d tha t he ca l l e d o v e r t h i rty t i m es. R i c h i e coul d not recal l w het her he w enton vacat i on i n S ept em ber 200 8, buti f

he ha d, he w asuns ure w het her a ca l l from S l oa n w oul d ha ve been report ed. H ow ever , he te sti fi e d t hat , i f Sl oan t al ked w i t h another o ffice r, th e o ffice r p ro b a b l y w o u l d h a v e re c o rd e d th e c a l l
. R i c h i e a l s o te s ti fi e d a s to v i o l a ti o n s tw o th ro u g h fi v e , re g a rd i n g S l o a n ’s fai l ure t o subm i tm onthl y court
- ordered paym ent s for courtco sts , hi s fi ne,5

and t he com m uni ty super vi si on fee. A ccordi ng t o R i c hi e’ s t est i m ony, Sl oan fai l e d to m a k e h i s c o u rt -ord e red p a y m e n ts for c o u rtco sts an d a c o m m u n i ty s u p e rv i s i o n fe e fo r M a y 2 0 0 7 , A u g u s t th ro u g h D e c e m b e r 2 0 0 7 , J a n u a ry t hroug h A pr i l 20 08 , and Jun e t hroug h O ct ober 20 08
. R i c h i e al so t est i fi ed t hatSl oan fa i l e d to m ake hi s m onthl y paym ent s t ow ard t he court
- ordered fi ne for O ct obe r

t hrough D ec em ber

2007 , Ja nua r

y t hrough A pr i l 2 0 0 8 , an d June t hroug h O ct ober 20 08
. A ddi t i onal l y, R i chi e st at ed, “[ W ] e hard l y ev er ju s tv io la t e o n t h e m o n e y u n le s s t h e y ju s tfla tre fu s e t o p a y .” R ic h ie ac kno w l edg ed t hatS l oa n w asha vi ng di f fi cul ty m ak i ng pa ym ents bec aus e o f h i s d i v o rc e e x p e n s e s . A fte r h e a ri n g a l l o f th e te s ti m o n y , th e tri a l c o u rt fo u n d th e S t a te ’s al l egat i ons t o be t rue. The t r i al courtadj udi cat ed S l oan gu i l ty of aggravat ed assaul tw i t h a deadl y w eapon an d s ent enced hi m t o fourt een years’ confi nem entand a $ 1, 50 0 fi ne. Sl oan fi l ed a not i ce of appeal ; he al so fi l ed a m o ti o n fo r n e w tri a l , w h i c h w a s o v e rru l e d b y o p e ra ti o n o f l a w .

II I. A dj u d i c a ti o n o f G u i l t S u p p o rte d b y R e c o rd I n hi s i ss ue, Sl oan argue s t he t r i al co urtab us ed i t s di sc ret i on by a dju d ic a t in g h im g u il t y b e c a u s e t h e e v id e n c e w a s le g a lly a n d fa c t u a lly i n s u fficie n t to s h o w th a t h e v i o l a te d h i s c o m m u n i ty s u p e rv i s i o n .6

A
. St andard of

Rev i ew W e revi ew an order

revo ki ng c om m uni ty s upe r vi si on un der

an ab us e o f d i s c re ti o n s ta n d a rd
. R i c k e l s v . S tate , 2 02 S. W
. 3d 759 , 7 63 (Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 2 0 0 6 ); C ardona v . S tate , 6 6 5 S .W .2 d 4 9 2 , 4 9 3 (T e x . C r im
. A p p . 1 9 8 4 ); C h e rr y v . S ta te , 2 1 5 S .W .3 d 9 1 7 , 9 1 9 ( T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rt h 2 0 0 7 , p e t. ref’ d)
. I n a revocat i on proceedi n g , the Stat e m ustprove by a prepon derance of t he evi den ce t hatt he def end antvi ol ated the t erm s and co ndi t i ons of c o m m u n i ty s u p e rv i s i o n . C o b b v . S tate , 85 1 S
. W
. 2 d 8 7 1 , 8 7 3 ( T e x . C r i m. A p p . 1 9 9 3 ); C h e rry , 215 S
. W
. 3d at919. The t r i al co urti s t he s ol e j udge of t he credi bi l i ty of t he w i t nes se s and t he w ei ghtt o be gi ven t hei r t es t i m ony, a n d w e re v i e w th e e v i d e n c e in t h e l i g h t m o s t fa v o ra b l e to th e tri a l c o u rt’s ru l i n g . C ardona , 6 6 5 S .W .2 d a t 4 9 3 ; G a rre tt v . S tate , 619 S
. W
. 2d 172, 1 7 4 (T e x . C r im
. A p p . [P a n e l O p .] 1 9 8 1 ); C h e rry , 215 S
. W
. 3d at919. I f t he S t a t e fa ils t o m e e tit s b u rd e n o f p ro o f, t h e t r ia l c o u rta b u s e s it s d is c re t io n in re v o k i n g th e c o m m u n i ty s u p e rv i s i o n . Cardona , 6 6 5 S .W .2 d a t 4 9 3
– 9 4 . Proof by a p repo nde ranc e o f t he evi den ce of

an y one of

t he al l eged v i o l a ti o n s o f th e c o n d i ti o n s o f c o m m u n it y s u p e rv i s i o n i s s u fficie n t to s u p p o rt a re v o c a ti o n o rd e r. M o o re v . S tate , 605 S. W
. 2d 924 , 926 (Tex. C r i m . A pp. [P a n e l O p .] 1 9 8 0 ); S a n c h e z v . S tate , 603 S
. W
. 2d 869, 8 71 (Tex. Cr i m . A pp.7

[P a n e l O p .] 1 9 8 0 ); L e a c h v . S tate , 1 7 0 S .W .3 d 6 6 9 , 6 7 2 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 5 , p e t. re f’d .). A fact ual suf

fi ci ency revi ew i s i napp l i cabl e t o revocat i o n proceedi ngs. S ee B e c k e r v. S tate , 33 S. W
. 3d 64, 65–6 6 (Tex. A pp. — El P aso 2 0 00, no p e t.); Joseph v. Sta te , 3 S .W .3 d 6 2 7 , 6 4 2 (T e x . A p p .— H o u s to n [1 4 th D i s t.] 1 9 9 9 , no pe t .); L igg e tt v . S tate , 998 S
. W
. 2d 733, 735– 36 (Tex. A p p .— B e a u m o n t 1 9 9 9 , n o p e t.). I nabi l i ty t o pay i s an af fi r m at i ve defense t h att he defendan tm ustrai se and prove by a p repo nde ranc e o f t he evi den ce . T ex . C od e C r i m . Proc. A nn. a rt. 4 2 .1 2 , § 2 1 (c ) (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 9 ); S tan fi e l d v . S tate , 718 S. W
. 2d 734 , 7 3 7 –38 (

Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 1986 )
. I f t he def

end antrai se s t he i ss ue and m ee t s hi s burden , t he burden s hi ft s t o t he St at e t o prove t hathe i n te n ti o n a l l y fa i l e d to p a y . S t a n fie ld , 718 S
. W
. 2d a t738. B . A n a ly s is W e d e te rm i n e th a t a p re p o n d e ra n c e o f th e e v i d e n c e d o e s n o t s u p p o rt S l oan’ s i nabi l i ty t o m ake t he m i ssed paym ent s butdoes su p p o rtt he al l eged vi ol at i ons of

co ndi t i ons ( 3) , ( 4 ) , a nd ( 5) of hi s com m uni ty s upe r vi si on reg ardi ng pa ym en t of co sts an d fee s . S ee Cardona , 665 S. W
. 2d a t493; M o o re , 6 0 5 S .W .2 d a t 9 2 6 . S u fficie n te v id e n c e s u p p o rts th e tri a l c o u rt’s j u d g m e n t.8 I V
. Concl us i on W e affi rm the tr i a l co u rt ’s j u d g m e n t.

C H A R L E S B L E IL J U S T I C E PA N EL: M C C O Y and M EI ER , JJ. ; a nd C H A R LES BLE I L (S eni or Just i ce, R e ti re d , S i ttin g b y A s s i g n m e n t). DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: Aug us t31, 2010