ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
CAUSE NO. PD-1091-15
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS

* * * * * BEDROS NOBAR MINASSIAN, Petitioner / Appellant
VS. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Respondent / Appellee

* * * * * On Petition from a Decision of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas, Dallas Division in Cause No. 05-13-00936-CR

PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

THOMAS G. PAPPAS BURLESON PATE & GIBSON, L.L.P. TEXAS BAR CARD NO. 15455300 900 Jackson Street, Suite 330 Dallas, Texas 75202 Telephone: (214) 871-4900 Facsimile: (214) 871-7543 Email: tpappas@bp-g.com COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER/APPELLANT BEDROS NOBAR MINASSIAN PD-1091-15 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 9/16/2015 2:42:21 PM Accepted 9/22/2015 10:45:20 AM

ABEL ACOSTA CLERKTABLE OF CONTENTS
Pa g e

Tab le o f Co n t en t s
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i Id en t i t y o f Part i es
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i i
In d ex o f Au t h ori ti es
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i i i
St at em en t Reg ard i n g Oral Arg u m en t

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
St at em en t o f t he Cas e.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
St at em en t o f Pro ced u ral Hi s t ory
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
Co u rt o f Ap p eal s Op i n i o n.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Gro un d s fo r Rev i ew.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Reas o n fo r Rev i ew..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
An al y s i s
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Pray er fo r Rel i ef.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1
Cert i fi cat e o f Serv i ce.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2
Cert i fi cat e o f Co m

p l i an ce ..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 Ap p en d ix “ A”.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O p i n io n an d J u d g m en t d at ed J u l y 1 6 , 2 0 1 5

iI D ENTI TY OF PARTI ES

Bed ro s No b ar M i nas si an , Pet i ti o n er ATTORNEY FOR PETI TI ONER Th o m as G. Pap p as Bu rl es o n, Pat e & Gi b s o n , L.L.P. 9 0 0 J ack s o n St reet , Su i t e 3 3 0 Dal l as , Tex as 7 5 2 0 2
ATTORNEYS FOR STATE Ap p el l at e at to rn ey s : Su s an Hawk M i ch ael Cas i l l as Dal l as Co u n ty

Di s t ri ct At t o rn ey 's Offi ce 1 3 3 N. Ri v erfro nt Bl vd ., LB 1 9 Dal l as , Tex as 7 5 2 0 7
Rev ocat i o n h eari n g at to rn ey s : Crai g W at ki n s Dav id Bu n g er Dal l as Co u n ty

Di s t ri ct At t o rn ey 's Offi ce 1 3 3 N. Ri v erfro nt Bl vd ., LB 1 9 Dal l as , Tex as 7 5 2 0 7
Li s a C. M cM i n n St at e Pro s ecu t in g At t o rn ey P.O. Bo x 1 3 0 4 6 Au s ti n , Tex as 7 8 7 1 1
PRESI DI NG J UDGE Ho n o rab l e Teres a Hawt ho rn e 2 0 3 rd Cri m i n al Di s t ri ct Co u rt 1 3 3 N. Ri v erfro nt Bl vd ., 7 t h Fl o o r Dal l as , Tex as 7 5 2 0 7

iiINDEX OF AUTHORI TI ES

Ca s es : Co b b v. S t a t e , 8 5 1 S.W .2 d 8 71 (1 9 9 3 ) .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 , 3
Jo h ns o n v. S t a te , 3 8 6 S.W .3 d 3 4 7 (Tex .Ap p .-Am ari l lo 2 0 12 , n o p et .).

. . . 2 , 3 , 4 , 5

Sta tutes a nd Rul es : Tex as Ru l es o f Ap p el l at e Pro ced u re Ru l e 4 .1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
Ru l e 6 8 .2 (a) .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

iiiSTATEMENT REGARDI NG ORAL ARGUMENT

Th e Pet i t io ner req u es t s o ral arg u m en t

.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Th e Pet i t i o n er was ch arg ed b y In d i ct m en t wi t h th e o ffen s e o f Fel o n y Dri v i n g W h i l e In t o x i cat ed (DW I 3rd ). Th e Pet i ti o n er p l ed g u i l t y o n J u l y 8 , 2 0 0 8 an d was

s en t en ced t o fi ve (5 ) y ears i n t h e Tex as Dep art m en t o f Cri m in al J u s t i ce p ro b at ed fo r

a p e r i o d o f t e n (1 0 ) y ears
. On J u n e 2 7 , 2 0 1 2 , a M o t io n t o Rev o k e Pro b at i o n was fi led

. Su bs eq u en t t o t h at , fo u r (4 ) Am en d ed M ot i on s to Rev o k e Pro b at i o n were fi l ed

. Th e l at es t w as fi led o n M arch 5 , 2 0 1 3

. ( C R at 5 8 -5 9 ). O n M arch 2 9 , 20 1 3 , t h e h eari n g was h el d o n th e m o s t recen t M o ti o n t o Rev ok e. Th e Pet it i on er p l ed n o t t ru e. Th e St at e p ro ceed ed o n t wo (2 ) o f t h e al leg at i on s
. Th e Co u rt fo u n d t h e al l eg at i on s
t o b e tru e, rev o k ed th e Pet i t i o n er’ s p ro bat i on an d s en ten ced hi m t o n i n e (9 ) y ears in
t h e Tex as Dep art m en t o f Cri m i n al J us t i ce. (CR at 6 0 -6 4 ).

STATEMENT OF PROCEDURAL HI STORY
Th e Co u rt of Ap p eal s fo r t h e Fi ft h Di st ri ct o f Tex as at Dal l as i n an Op i n i o n d at ed Ju l y 1 6 , 2 0 1 5 affi rm ed t h e rev ocat i o n o f th e Pet i t i on er’ s co m m u n i t y

s u p erv i s i o n an d s en t en ce o f n i n e (9 ) y ears i n t h e T e x a s D e p a r t m en t o f Cri m i n al
J u s t i ce. A Pet it i on fo r Di s cret i o n ary Rev i ew i s t i m el y fi l ed i f a req u es t fo r ex t en s i o n i s fi led b y Au g us t 17 , 2 0 1 5 an d t h e Pet i t i o n fo r Di s cret i o nary Re v i e w i s fi l ed by Sep tem b er 1 6 , 2 0 1 5

. Ru les 4 .1 an d 6 8 .2 (a) o f t h e Tex as Ru les o f Ap p el l at e Pro ced ure.

ivORAL ARGUM ENT REQUESTED
CAUSE NO. PD-1 09 1 -1 5
I N THE COURT OF CRI MI NAL APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS

* * * * *
BEDROS NOBAR MI NASSI AN, Peti ti o ner / Appel l a nt
VS. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Res po ndent / Appel l ee

* * * * *
On Peti ti o n fro m a Deci si o n o f the Co urt o f Appea l s fo r the Fi fth Di s tri ct o f Tex a s , Da l l a s Di v is i o n

i n Ca us e No . 0 5 -1 3 -0 0 9 3 6

P ETI TI ON FOR DI SCRETI ONARY REVI EW
COM ES N OW , BEDROS NOBAR M INASSI A N , Pet i t io n er h erei n , an d Ap p el l an t befo re t h e Co u rt o f Ap p eal s fo r t he Fi ft h Di st ri ct o f Tex as at Dal l as , Tex as ,

an d s eek s d i s cret i o n ary rev i ew fro m th i s Ho n orab l e Co u rt fro m an o p in i o n affi rm i n g h i s co n v i ct i o n
. COURT OF APPEALS OPI NI ON
Th e Co u rt of Ap p eal s r e v i ewed t h e t ran s cri p t an d s om e o f th e ev i d en ce (t h e Pet i t io n er’ s “ p ro b at i o n fi le” was o ffered an d al l o wed i n to ev i d e n c e o v er t h e Pet i t io n er’ s o b

ject i o n, b u t was n o t m ad e p art o f t h e ap p el l at e reco rd ) o f t h e Tri al
Co u rt ’ s p ro ceed in g an d d et erm i n ed t h at t h e St at e m et i t s b u rd en of pro v i ng t h at t h e

1Pet i t io n er v i o l at ed t h e t erm s o f h is co m m u n i t y s up erv i s io n
. GROUNDS FOR REVI EW
1

. Th e Co u rt o f Ap p eal s erred i n u p h ol d i n g t h e Tri al Co u rt ’ s fi n d i n g wh ere
t h ere was n o ev i d en ce t h at t h e pers o n b efo re t h e Co u rt was th e s am e
p ers o n t hat was p laced o n p ro b at i on
. 2

. Th e Co u rt o f Ap p eal s erred i n u p h o l d i n g t he Tri al Co u rt ’ s fi n d i n g t h at
t h e St at e m et i t s b u rd en o f p ro v in g t h at t h e Pet i t i o n v io l at ed th e t erm s

o f h i s co m

m u n i t y s u p erv i s i on b y t rav el i ng o ut s i d e D a l l a s Co u n t y wi t h ou t h av i ng fi rs t o b t ai n ed wri t t en p e r m i s s io n by ad m i t t i ng “ i n t o ”

ev i den ce an un m ark ed p ro b at i o n fi l e u n d er th e gu i s e o f a cu s t o d i an o f
t h e b u s i n es s reco rd ex cep ti o n t o t h e h ears ay ru l e. REASONS FOR REVI EW Th e Pet i t i o n er’ s p ro b at io n was wi t h o u t su ffi ci en t p ro o f o f vi o l a t i o n o f h i s

co n di t i o n s o f p ro b at i o n . He was s en t en ced t o n i n e (9 ) y ears i n p ri s o n
. On t h e i s s ue o f th e Pet i t i o n er’ s i d en t i ty , t h e Ap p el lat e Co u rt fai l ed t o p ro p erl y
ap p ly t h e law as s et o u t b y t h e Co u rt o f Cri m in al Ap p eal s i n Co b b v. St a t e , 8 5 1
S.W .2 d 8 7 1 (1 9 9 3 ) i n t h at th e Ap p el lat e Co u rt fai l ed t o ap p l y a n o-ev i d en ce s t an d ard
t o p ro o f o f t h e Pet i t i o n er’ s i d en t i t y . Jo h n s o n v. S t a t e , 38 6 S.W

. 3 d 3 47 (Tex .Ap p .- Am ari ll o 2 0 1 2 , no p et .). Th e Co u rt i m p ro p erl y rel i ed on t h e wro ng s tan d ard fro m Jo h ns o n (wai v e r f

o r fai l ure t o as s ert ) wh en th e p ro p er Jo h n so n s t an dard cl earl y

s u p p ort s t h e Pet i t i o n er’ s cl ai m o f n o ev i d en ce.

2Th e A p p el l at e Co u rt fai l ed t o p ro p erl y ap p l y t h e l aw as i t ap p l i es t o t h e h ears ay

t es t i m o ny of a co m

m un i t y s u p erv i si o n o ffi cer (M r. Pach eco ) wh o h ad n o k n o wl ed g e

o f t h e Pet i t i o n er ex cep t fro m t h e d u p l i cat es o f a fi le n o t p ro perl y au th en t i c a t e d o r

o ffered i nt o ev i d en ce. Si n ce i m p ro p erl y ad m i t t e d h ears ay o p erat es as h av i n g n o

ev i d en t i ary v al u e, t h e St at e fai l ed t o m eet i t s bu rd en o f p ro o f o n v i o l at i o n of o u t o f

co u nt y t rav el s t an d ard

. A NALYSI S
I . Th e Ap p el l at e Co u rt ru l ed t h at “ t h e St at e m u s t s t i l l p ro v e t h e p ro b at i o n er’ s i d en t i t y b u t fai l u re t o d o s o wi l l n o t res u l t in erro r o n ap p eal u nl es s t h e p ro b at i o n er rai s es th e i s s u e at t ri al .” Jo hn s on v. S t a t e , 3 86 S.W .3 d 3 4 7 , 3 5 0 (Tex

. Ap p .-Am ari l lo
2 0 1 2 , n o p e t .)

. Ho wev er, th e Ap p el lat e Co u rt rel i ed o n t h e wro n g l eg al s t an d ard

. Th e p ro p er s t an d ard is a “ no ev id en ce” s t an d ard

. W h ere, as h ere, t h e Tri al Co u rt h ad

n o ev i d en ce t hat t h e Defen d an t b efo re i t was th e s am e Defen d an t wh o was pl aced o n
p ro b at i o n an d g iv en t he Co n d it io n s o f Pro b at i o n i n 2 0 0 8

. Th e p ro p er Ap p el l at e Co u rt

ru l i n g sh o u l d b e rev ers al

. Es peci al l y wh ere t he Co u rt of Cri m i n al Ap p eal s ex p l i ci t l y ad d res s es th e n eces s i t y o f p ro v i n g t he v i o l at i o n
. Co b b v. S t a t e , 8 5 1 S

. W. 2 d 8 7 1 (1 9 9 3).
Th e Ap p el l at e Co urt ci t es Jo h n so n as s tan d i n g fo r t he p rem i s es t hat fai l u re to rai s e id en t i t y wai v es t h e is s u e. Th at i s n o t accu rat e. Jo h n s o n s t at es “ th e reco rd h ere,
t h erefo re co n t ai n s ev i d en ce t o s u p po rt t he Tri a l C o u r t ’s co n cl u s i o n th at t h e St at e

3es t ab l i s h ed b y a p rep o n d eran ce o f t h e ev i d e n c e th at t h e ap p el l an t i s t h e i n d i v i d u al

wh o was p l aced on co m m un i t y s u p erv i s i o n by o rd e r s i g n ed A p ri l 2 3 , 2 0 0 3 , fo r

m u rd er in t ri al co u rt cau s e n u m b e r 4 4 ,7 0 3 -B

... T h e Tri al Co u rt d i d n o t ab u s e i t s d i s cret i o n b y fi n d in g t hat a prep o n d eran ce o f t h e ev id en ce es t ab l i s h ed t h at ap p el l an t

was t h e i n d i v i du al s u b

j ect t o t h e t erm s an d co n d i ti o n s o f t h e 2 0 03 o rd er p l aci n g h i m

o n co m m u n i t y s u p erv i si o n .”
Th ere was n o ev i d en ce at t h e r e v o c a t i o n h eari n g to es t ab li s h t hat t h e m an in

co u rt i s t he s am e m an g i v en t h e co n d i t i o n s o f p ro b at i o n an d p laced o n p ro b at i o n i n 2 0 0 8

. A co m

p ari s o n b et ween th e ev i d en ce p res en ted o n i d en ti t y o n Jo h n so n an d t h e ab s en ce o f i d en t i t y ev i d en ce i n t h e Pet i t io n er’ s cas e h ig h l i g h t s h o w fu n dam en t al l y fl awed t h e Tri al Co urt ’ s ru li n g was : 1

. In Jo hn s o n , t h e Co u rt ad d res sed t h e d efen d an t , wh o ad m i tt ed h e was t h e

s am e m an wh o was p l aced o n p ro b at i o n
.

“ Co u rt : An d M r. J o h n s o n , are y o u th e s am e L av al l e Rap h ael

J o h n s o n wh o was h ere o ri gi nal l y on Ap ri l 2 3 rd o f 2 0 0 3

an d p l ed g u i l t y t o m

u rd er? Defen d an t : Yes s i r.”
In t h e Pet i t i o ner’ s cas e, t h ere are n o s u ch ad m i s si on s
. 2

. In Jo h n s o n , t h e d efen d an t ’ s p ro b at i o n offi cer t es t i fi ed an d i d en t i fi ed t h e d efen d an t as th e p ers o n h e s u perv i sed

. In t h e Pet it i o n er’ s cas e, t h e St at e

4d id n o t b ri n g a co m m u n i t y s up erv i s io n o ffi cer wh o h ad an y k n o wl ed g e

o f t h e cas e o r wh o h ad ev er s u p erv i s ed t h e Pet i t i o ner. Th e w i tn es s was

o nl y fam i l i ar wi th t h e n am e o f t he Pet it i on er. (RR 3 at 1 0 ).
3

. In Jo h ns o n , t h ere were o ri g i nal s o f d o cu m en t s i n t ro d uced in t o t h e fi l e. In t h e Pet it i o n er’ s cas e, t h e St at e was o n l y ab l e t o p r o d u ce d u p l i cat es (RR 3 at 1 1 ) an d t h e fi l e was n ev er p ro perl y au t h en t i cat ed , o ffered i n to

ev i den ce, o r m ad e a p art o f t h e reco rd

. I I . A p ro b at i o n fi l e w as ad m i t t ed i n to ev i d en ce ov er t h e Pet i t i o n er’ s o b ject i o n wh en t h at fi l e w as n o t p ro p erl y au t h en t i cat ed o r m ark ed o r ev en o ffered i n to

ev i d en ce. An y t es t i m o n y fro m t h at fi l e wo u l d b e i n ad m i s s i b l e h ears ay wh i ch h as n o

ev i d en t i ary

v al u e. Q: ( By M r. Bu n g er) Si r, are y o u th e cu s t o di an o f t h e b u s in es s reco rd s fo r t h e Dal l as Co u nt y Co m m u ni t y Serv i ce Su p erv i s io n an d Co rrect i o n s Dep art m en t ?
A: (By

M au ri ci o Pach eco ) I am

. Q: An d i s t h i s t h e r e g u l ar co u rs e of b u s i n es s o f Dal l as Co u nt y t o k eep t h es e k in ds o f reco rd s ?
A: It i s
. Q: An d y o u h a v e b efo re y o u t h e act u al fi l e o n Bed ro s

5M i n as s i an ; i s t h at co rrect ?

A: Th at ’ s co rrect

. Q: Are y o u fam i l i ar wi t h M r. M i n as si an ?
A: J us t t h e n am e o n l y . Q: Nam e o n l y ?
A: Yes

. Q: An d d i d an em

p l o y er, a rep res en tat i v e o f Dal l as Co u n t y CSCD m ak e t h es e reco rd s as p a rt o f t h ei r co u rs e o f b u s i n es s i n t h e Co m

m u n i t y Serv i ce Dep art m en t ? Is t hat

co rrect ?
A: Yes , t h at ’ s co rrect

. Q: A n d w ere reco rd s m ad e at or n ear t h e t im e t he e v e n t s d es cri b ed t h erei n o ccu rred ?
A: Yes

. Q: An d d i d t h e p ers o n m ak i ng t he reco rd s o r e n t ri es h av e
act u al k n o w l ed g e o f t h es e ev en t s as p art of t h e co n d u ct o f
t h e b u s i n es s o f d o i ng ?
M r. Pap p as : W el l , Yo u r Ho n o r, I’ m g o i n g t o ob ject

. He d o es n ’ t k n o w wh at t h ey d i d o r d i d n ’ t h av e act ual
k n o w l ed g e of. He d o es n’ t k n o w an y t h i n g o t h er

6t h an t h e n am e o f t he d efen d an t h ere. Th at cal l s fo r

s pecu l at i o n o n t h e p art o f t h i s wi t n es s
. M r. Bu n ger: Y o u r H o n o r , i t ’s a s t a n d a r d t o g e t t h e

ev i d en ce in t h e fi l e t h at ’ s u s ed t o k eep u p wi t h wh at ’ s g oi ng o n wi th M i n as si an ’ s cas e

as i t ’ s b ei n g m ai n t ai n ed t h ro u g h o ut h i s t erm

o f p ro b at i o n
. Th e Co u rt : Ob

ject i o n o v erru l ed

. M r. Bu n ger: Th an k y o u , Yo ur Ho n o r. Q: (By

M r. Bu n g er) No w, are t h es e d u pl i cat es o r o ri g in al s i n t h e d ocu m en t s t h ere i n t h e fi l e?
A: Sp eci fi cal ly

wh at are y o u t al k i n g ab ou t ? Q: Th e co n ten t o f t h at fi l e, i s t h at t h e o ri gi n al do cu m en t s o r d u p li cat es ?
A: Du p l i cat es
. Q: Ok ay
. Do y o u k n o w wh ere t h e o ri g i n al s m ay b e k ep t ?
A: Do n o t

. Co u rt jack et p erh ap s b u t I’ m n o t s u re wh ere t h ey are ri g ht n o w. Q: Is t here an y t h i n g i n t h e fi le t h at i n d i ca t e s wri t ten
p erm i s s i on t o t rav el o u ts i de o f Dal l as Co u n t y ?

7A: No

.

Q: Is t h ere an y

– are t h ere an y id en t ifi cat i o n o f v eh i cl es as
p art o f h i s co n d i t i o n s u n d er parag rap h

– I bel i ev e i t ’ s
p arag rap h Q

– t h at i n d i cat e wh at v eh i cl es M r. M i n as s ian
h as th at are eq u i p p ed wi t h t h e i n t erl o ck d e v i c e, i s t h ere

an y reco rd i n t h ere t h at i n d icat es t h o s e v eh i cl es ?
A: I h av e n o k n o wl ed g e o f t h at

. Q: Yo u h av e n o k n o wl ed g e o f th at

. So y ou can ’ t t es t ify as
t o wh at

– an y v eh i cl es M r. M i n as s i an has rep o rt ed to h i s
p ro b at i on o ffi cer as p art o f h i s reco rd as t o wh at v eh i cl es

m ay h av e o r m ay

n o t h av e i n t erl o ck d ev ices o n i t ?
A: Th at ’ s co rrect

. Q: A n d yo u h av e n o reco rd i n w hi ch h e h as b een g ran ted
p erm i s s i on t o l eav e Dal l as Co u n ty ; i s t h at co rrect ?
A: Th at ’ s co rrect

. Q: I s i t a co n d i t i o n o f p ro bat i o n th at h e n o t l eav e Dal l a s Co u nt y ?
A: It i s a co n d i ti o n
. Q: Is it al s o a co n d i t i o n o f h i s

– u nd er h i s p ro b a t i o n t erm s , i t was J u l y 8 , 2 0 0 8 , I b el i ev e, t h at h e n o t o p erat e a m o t o r

8v eh icl e wi t h o ut a d eep l u n g b reat h an al y s i s m ech an i s m ?

A. Th at ’ s co rrect

. Q: Is t h at co rrect ?
A: Th at ’ s co rrect

. (RR 3 at 9 -1 2 ).

Q: (By M r. Pap p as ) No w, a co u p le q u es t i o n s
. At so m e p o i n t b et ween 2 0 0 8 an d t o d ay , Dal l as Co u n t y ad u l t p ro b at i o n

wen t o n l i n e an d b eg an t o k eep t h ei r reco rd s o r p ro b at i o n

o ffi cer n o t es o n l i n e o n t h e co m p u t er. Is t h at co rrect ?
A: (By M r. Pach eco ) I’ m n o t s u re ab o u t t h e ex act d at e b ut I

wo u l d s ay , y es
. Q: Ok ay
. An d y yo u h a v e b efo re y o u a fi l e t h ere; i s t hat

co rrect ?
A: Th at ’ s co rrect

. Q: O k a y. An d d o y o u p ri n t o u t t h e t h i n g s t h at are on l i n e

an d ad d t h o s e t o t h e fi le o r n ot ?
A: I d o n ot p ers o n al l y . I ju st l oo k at t h e co m pu t er fo r n ot es
. Q: An d y o u d o n’ t h av e an y i n d e p en den t k n o wl ed g e o f th i s

cas e?
A: I d o n o t

.

9Q: Yo u ju s t were g i v en t he g u y ’ s n am e an d t o l d t o p ul l h i s
p ro b at i on fi l e?
A: Pret ty

m uch , y es
. Q: S o y o u can ’ t t el l us wh et h er wh at ’ s o n t h e co m p ut er i s al s o co n t ai n ed o n –

wh at ’ s i n t h e fi l e?
A: I co u l d n o t. (RR 3 at 1 3 ).
W i t h o u t t h e fi l e t h at was d i s cu s s ed , t h ere i s n o w ay t o k n o w ex act l y wh at was d o n e or no t d o n e b y t h e Co m m u n it y S u p e r vi s i o n O ffi cer v i s-a-v is i t s Pro b at i o n er. W h at can b e s ai d wi t h c e r t a i n t y i s t h at t he t es t i fy in g wi tn es s , M r. Pach eco , h ad n o
p ers o n al o r fi rs t-h an d k n owl ed g e reg ard i n g t h e Pet i t i o n er. T herefo re, h is h ears ay
t es t i m o ny h as n o ev i d en ti ary v al u e as t o an y o f t h e el em en t s o f t h e al l eg ed vi o l at i o n

o f t rav el i n g o u ts i d e t h e co u nt y . M erel y becau s e t he p ro b at i o n rev o cat i o n p r oc e e din g s

are no t a ju ry t ri al d o es n o t ex cu s e t h e St a t e o r t h e T r i al Co u rt fro m fo l l o wi n g

ev i d en t i ary ru l es an d t h e law. M r. Pach eco g av e h ears ay fro m “ d u p l i cat es ” (u n k n o wn

o ri g i nal s) i n a p ro bat i o n er’ s fi l e, a fi l e t h at w as nev er o ffered i n t o ev i d en ce, m u ch l es s

m ark ed an d nu m

b ered as an ex hi b i t

. Fu rt h er, t h at fi l e ap p eared t o b e, i n part , a p ap er fi le an d, i n p art , a co m

pu t er fi l e. Fi n al l y , n o t h i n g fro m t h at fi l e m ad e i t s way i n t o t h e

reco rd fo r t h e T ri al Co u rt or t h e Ap p el l at e Co u rt t o rev i ew. As s uch , Mr. Pach eco ’ s i m p ro p er h e a r s a y t es t i m o n y can o n l y b e t reat ed as hav i n g no ev i d en t i ary v al ue.

10Th erefo re, t h e St at e’ s pro of o f a v i o lat ed p ro b at i o n co n di t i o n fai l s as a m at t er o f l aw

u n d er t h e n o -ev i d en ce s t an dard

. Th i s Co u rt m

u s t i n s i s t b y i t s ru l in g s t hat co urt s fo l l o w ru l es an d t h at p eo p l e n ot b e s en t t o p ri s o n wh en th e co urt s fai l t o fo ll ow t ho s e ru l es
. A rev i ew o f th e Ap p el l at e Co u rt ’ s ru l i n g wi l l cl ari fy an d rei n fo rce a t ri al co urt ’ s neces s i t y o f fo ll o wi n g t h e l aw i n p ro b at i o n rev o cat i o n p ro ceed i n gs
. PRAYER FOR RELI EF Th e Pet i t i o n er res p e c t f

u l l y pray s t h at t h i s Co u rt gran t t h e Pet i t i o n fo r Di s cret io n ary Rev i ew, aft er bri efi ng a n d arg u m en t , rev ers e th e Co u rt o f Ap p eal s ’

o p i n i o n , an d rei n s t at e h i s p ro b at i o n. Res p ect fu l ly s u b m i t t ed , / s / Th o ma s G. Pa

p p a s

_ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ THOM A S G. PAPPAS TEXAS BAR CARD No .1 5 4 5 5 3 0 0 BURLESON PATE & GIBSON, L.L.P.
9 0 0 J ack s o n St reet , Su i t e 3 3 0 Dal l as , Tex as 7 52 0 2 Tel ep h o n e: (2 1 4 ) 8 71 -4 9 00 Facs i m i l e: (2 1 4 ) 8 7 1 -7 5 43 Em ai l : t p ap p as @ b p -g .co m COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER / APPELLANT BEDROS NOBAR M INASSIAN

11CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Th i s wi l l cert i fy t h at a co py o f t h e fo reg oi n g was del i v ered v i a el ect ro ni c fi l i n g an d /o r cert i fi ed m ai l , ret urn recei p t req u es t ed t o t h e fo l lo wi n g : Su s an Hawk Li sa C. M cM i n n M i ch ael Cas i l l as St at e Pro s ecu t i n g At t o rn ey Crai g W at ki n s P.O. Bo x 1 3 0 4 6 Dav id Bu n g er Au s ti n, Tex as 7 8 7 1 1 Dal l as Co u n ty

Di s t ri ct At t o rn ey 's Offi ce 1 3 3 N. Ri v erfro nt Bl vd ., LB 1 9 Dal l as , Tex as 7 5 2 0 7
DATED t h e 1 6 t h d ay

o f Sep t em

b er, 2 0 1 5

. / s / Th o ma s G. Pa

p p a s

_ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ THOM A S G. PAPPAS

CERTIFICATE OF COM PLIANCE
Pu rs uan t t o Tex as Ru l e o f Ap p el l at e Pro ced u re 9.4 (i )(3 ), I h ereb y cert i fy t h at t h i s B r i e f co n t ai n s 2 ,0 8 5 wo rd s (ex cl u d i n g t h e cap t i o n , i den t i t y o f part i es , t ab le o f co n ten t s , t ab l e o f au t h ori t i es , s i g n at u re, p ro o f o f s erv i ce, cert i fi cat i o n , an d cert i fi cat e o f c o m p l i an ce). Th is i s a co m

p u ter-g en erat ed d o cu m en t creat ed in W o rd Perfect , u s i n g 1 4 -p o i n t t y

p eface fo r al l t ex t

. In m ak i n g t h i s Cert ifi cat e o f Co m p l i an ce, I am rel y i n g o n t h e wo rd co u nt p ro v i d ed b y t h e s oft ware u s ed t o p rep are t h e d o cu m en t

. DATED t h e 1 6 t h d ay

o f Sep t em

b er, 2 0 1 5

. / s / Th o ma s G. Pa

p p a s

_ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ THOM A S G. PAPPAS

12

# A P P E N D I X “ A ”Affirmed as Modified; Opinion Filed July 16 , 2015 .

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 13
- 00936
- CR BEDROS NOBAR MINASSI AN , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F
- 0854609
- P MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Lang, Brown and Whitehill Opinion by Justice Lang This is an appeal from a judgment revoking community supervision

. In July 2008, Bedros Nobar Minassian was convicted of third degree felony driving while intoxicated and placed on community supervision for five years. See T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
. §§ 49.04(a), 49.09(b)(2) (West Supp. 20 14 ) . On the St ate’s motion, the trial court revoked Minassian’s community supervision and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment. In two issues, Minassian asserts the State failed to meet its burden of proving he violated the terms of his community supervision. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.– 2

– I. BACKGROUND The State moved to revoke Minassian’s community supervision in June 2012 based on alleged violations in F ebruary 2012 of certain terms of community supervision. The State amended its motion four times an d proceeded at the revocation hearing on allegations in its March 3, 2013 motion that Minassian violated , “on or about February 12, 2012 through February 19, 2012,” condition (g), requiring, in relevant part, he obtain written permission from the trial

cou rt or supervising officer before traveling outside Dallas County, and violated, “on or about February 12, 2012 and the week to follow,” condition (q), requiring he not drive unless the car is equipped with a deep lung breath analysis mechanism. 1 The State did not call Minassian’s supervision officer as a witness

. However, Mauricio Pacheco, the custodian of business records for the community service supervision and corrections department testif ied that the terms of community supervision included Minassian not travel outside Dallas County without written permission and that he not drive a car that was not equipped with a deep lung breath analysis mechanism or interlock device . Pacheco also testified nothing in Minassian’s paper or electronic
file reflected Minassian had obtained written permission to travel outside the county , but he could have received verbal permission. The State also called Secret Service special agent Troy Sarria and Minassian’s friends James Epstein and Anna Saenz

- Taylor. These witnes ses testified they had seen Minassian driving without the required interlock device on more than one occasion. Sarria specifically recalled seeing Minassian drive without the device in 2012 on a day when it was “warm outside,” and Epstein specifically rec alled seeing Minassian drive without the device in February 2012. According to Epstein, h e and Minassian drove from Chicago to Dallas during that month

.

1 The State also alleged he violated condition (a), prohibiting him from violating state laws, condition (j), requiring him to pay community supervision fees, and condition (o), prohibiting him, in part, from consuming alcohol. The parties do not dispute the State abandoned these allegations.– 3

–

Minassian did not call any witnesses

. but offered, without objection, the district clerk’s computer l og of the trial court’s activity as an exhibit . This exhibit reflected that on January 5, 2010, the trial court signed an “interlock removal order.” 2
II. MOTION TO REVOKE Minassian’s two issues assert the State’s proof had “numerous holes ” and did not s atisfy the required preponderance of the evidence standard. Specifically, he contends the State failed to (1) ask the trial court to take judicial notice of its file; (2) establish he was the same person who had been convicted and placed on probation; (3) establish he was served with the community supervision terms or “even what [those terms] were;” and (4) establish any violation occurred during the alleged time frame. He further asserts , with respect to the allegation that he violated condition (q) by d riving without the required interlock device , that the district clerk’s log of the trial court’s activity specifically showed the trial court ordered removal of the device. With respect to the allegation that he violated condition (g), he asserts also tha t the State failed to

“ offer the probation file into evidence or bring[] a supervision officer who had actually supervised [his] probation.” A. Applicable Law and Standard of Review An appellate court reviews a t rial court’s order revoking community super vision for abuse of discretion. Hacker v. State , 389 S.W.3d 860, 865 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). Because the trial judge is the sole judge of the witnesses’ credibility and the weight to give the evidence, in determining whether the trial court abused its di scretion, an appellate court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the order. See id. ; Lee v. State , 952 S.W.2d 894, 897 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 1997, no pet.) (en banc) (citing Garrett v. State , 619 S.W.2d 172, 174 (Tex. Crim. App.

2 This order is contained in the clerk’s record and s tates removal of the interlock device was authorized because Minassian’s car “was inoperable.”– 4

–

[Panel Op.] 1981)). An appellate court will conclude the t rial court abuse d its discretion if the State fail ed to meet its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the probationer violated the terms of community supervision. Lee , 952 S.W. 2 d at 897

. The State meets its burden when the greater weight of the credible evidence creates a reasonable belief that the probationer violated the terms of community supervision during “a time period anterior to the filing of the motion to revoke and within the pe riod of probation

. ” See Ri ckels v. State , 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (quoting Scamardo v. State , 517 S.W.2d 293, 298 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974)) ; Diaz v. State , 516 S.W.2d 154, 156 (Tex. Crim. App

. 1974)

. Because the execution of the sentence of a probationer is delayed contingent upon the successful completion of the community supervision conditions, a probation revocation hearing is an extension of the original sentencing hearing, and proof of the judgment of conviction and terms of communit y supervision is unnecessary. Cobb v. State , 851 S.W.2d 871, 873

- 74 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Th e State must still prove the probationer’s identity, but failure to do so will not result in error on appeal unless the probationer raises the issue at trial. Id; Johnson v. State , 386 S.W.3d 347, 350 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo 2012, no pet.) (cit ations omitted)

. When, as here, the State’s motion to revoke alleges multiple violations of the terms of community supervision, proof of any one of the alleged violations is sufficient to support the revocation order. See Smith
v. State , 286 S.W.3d 333, 342 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). B. Application of Law to Facts Minassian argues the State had to offer his file into evidence or call his supervision officer in order to establish the terms of community supervision and that he was served with those terms and establish either of the alleged violations occurred during the time period alleged

. However, t he State’s burden was to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Minassian violated condition (g) or condition (q) prior to the June 2012 filing of the motion to revoke and– 5

–

within the five

- year period of probation that began in July 2008. See Smith , 286 S.W.3d at 342; Diaz , 516 S.W.2d at 156 ; Lee , 952 S.W.2d at 897

. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, we conclude the State met its burden. Minassian’s identity was not at issue at trial, and Pacheco’s and Epstein’s testimonies established Minassian traveled
outside Dallas Count y without written permission. Their testimony “created a reasonable belief” that Minassian violated condition (g) of the terms of community supervision and was sufficient
to support the trial court’s order revoking Minassian’s community supervision. We d ecide Minassian’s issue challenging the State’s proof with respect to the allegation that he violated condition (g) against him. In light of this, we do not address his issue challenging the State’s proof with respect to condition (q). Se e Smith , 286 S.W .3d at 342. III. MODIFICATION OF JUDGMENT We note the judgment incorrectly recites that Minassian pleaded true to the allegations in the motion to revoke and that the trial court found Minassian violated the conditions of community supervision as set out i n the “State’s Original Motion to Revoke Community Supervision.” Because an appellate court has the authority to modify an incorrect judgment to make the record speak the truth, we modify the judgment to reflect Minassian pleaded not true and was found to have violated the conditions of community supervision as set out in the State’s March 3, 2013 “Motion to Revoke Community Supervision.” See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 43.2( b); Bigley v. State , 865 S.W.2d 26, 27

- 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v. State , 813 S.W.2d 526, 529

- 30 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d).– 6

– I V . CONCLUSION As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Do Not Publish T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 130936F.U05 /Douglas S. Lang/ DOUGLAS S. LANG JUSTICE– 7

– 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT
BEDROS NOBAR MINASSIAN, Appellant
No. 05

- 13

- 00936

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F

- 0854609

- P. Opinion delivered by Justice Lang. Justices Brown and Whitehill participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we MODIFY the trial court’s judgment as follows: (1) in the section entitled “ Plea to Motion to Revoke: ,” the plea of “ TRUE ” is re placed with “ NOT TRUE ;” and, (2) the statement in the judgment that “The Court FINDS Defendant has violated the conditions of community supervision as set out in the State’s ORIGINAL Motion to Revoke Community Supervision as follows: See attached Motion to Revoke Community Supervision. ” is replaced with “The Court FINDS Defendant has violated the terms of community supervision as set out in the State’s March 3, 2013 Motion to Revoke Community Supervision.”
As MODIFIED , we AFFIRM the trial court’s judgment.
Judgment entered this 16th day of July, 2015.