1 ... S ee Te x. R. App . P. 47. 4.
2 ... S eeT e x . P e n . C o d e A n n . § 2 2 .0 2 (a )(2 ) (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 8 ).



## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH
NO . 2- 07-413- CR
L ADE R R E L LAN T ONI O HOL L OW AY AP P E L L ANT V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M CRI M I NA LDI STRI CT CO URT NO . 1 OF TARRA NT CO UN TY

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

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON 1

----- ----- -- Th e t rial courtr evoked A ppel l antLader r el l A nt oni o H ol l ow ay’ s def er r ed adj udi ca t i on c om m uni t y s upe rvi si on, f ound hi m gui l t y of t he f el ony of f ens e o f agg r ava t ed as sa ul tw i t h a de adl y w ea pon, 2and sent enced hi m t o f i f t een year s’
c o n fi ne m e nt . I n on e i s s ue , App e l l a nta r gu e s t ha tt het r i a l c ou rta bu s e d i ts2

di scr et i on bypr oceedi ng t o adj udi cat i on and by sent enci ng hi m t o f i f t een year s’
c o n fi n e m e n t. W e w i l l a ffir m . D u r in g t h e p u n is h m e n tp h a s e o ft h e re v o c a t io n h e a r i n g , C a r m e n L e w is t est i f i ed abou tt he eventst hatl ed to A ppel l antpl eadi ng gu i l t y t o aggr avat ed assaul tw i t h a deadl y w eap o n a n d b e i ng pl aced on t en year s’ def er r ed adj udi ca t i on c om m uni t y s upe rvi si on. Le w i s t es t i f i ed t hats he and A ppe l l antl i ved t oge t herdur i ng t he sp r i ng a nd
e a r lys u m m e r2 0 0 7 . S h e s a id t h a t o n J u n e 5 , 2 0 0 7 , s h e e n d e d h e rre la t io n s h ip

w i th A p p e l l a n t an d g a v e h i m an ev i c ti o n n o ti c e , w h i c h sta ted t h a th e w a s to l eave herapart m entw i t h hi s bel ong i ngs w i t hi n seven days. Lew i s t est i f i ed t hat on J une8, 2007 , w hen s he r et ur ned f r om an eve ni ng w i t h f r i end s, A ppe l l ant
w a s o u tsi d e h e r ap a rt m e n t, “fu ri o u s [ a n d ] a n g ry.” S h e sa i d h e d e m a n d e d to k n o w w h e re s h e h a d b e e n , a c c u se d h e r o f c h e a ti n g o n h i m , a n d p u sh e d h e r i n to t he apart m ent . Lew i s sai d t hatonce i nsi de, A ppel l antcor ner ed her , pushed her d o w n o n the fl o o r, a n d p r o c e e d e d to “ ri p [ h e r] u n d e rw e a r off of [he r] ” to det er m i ne i f sh e had “b ee n out w i t h so m eon e e l se . ” Le w i s sa i d t hatA ppe l l ant
re p e a te d l yp u n c h e d h e r, k i c k e d h e r m u l ti p l e ti m e s , a n d c h o k e d h e r. Le w i s r ec ount ed t hat A ppe l l ant t hr ea t ene d her by sa yi ng, “You’ r e g oi ng t o di e t oni ght , I t ol d m ys el f i f you w as n’ ti n bym i dni ght , I w asgoi ng t o k i l l you . Y ou’ r e goi ng t o di e. ” S he sai d t hat A ppel l ant w ent i nt o t he ki t chen, gr abbed3

a “b u tch e r kn i fe,” a n d b e g a n w a v i n g i t aro u n d , th rea ten i n g h e r, sta b b i n g i t i n to t he w al l , and atone poi nt t hr ow i ng i t at her . Fr om t her e, accor di ng t o Lew i s, A ppel l antdem anded t hatshe puthershoes o n. A ppel l antt hen gr abbed her and , hol di ng t he kni f e at her si de, w al ke d her dow n t hr ee f l i ght s of st ai r s and p la c e d h e rin t h e p a s s e n g e r s e a to fh e rc a r . A f t e rd r iv in g a r o u n d

— a ll t h e w h ile A ppel l antw as t hr eat eni ng t hathe w a s goi ng t o ki l l her

— Lew i s sai d t hey event ual l y r et ur ned t o herapart m ent , w her e she got on herknees and begg ed hi m t o “n ot do any t hi ng t o m e. ” She s ai d Appel l antev ent ual l y c al m ed dow n and i n s tr u c te d h e rt o t ake a show er . Lew i s sai d t hatw hen she f i ni shed sh o w e ri n g , sh e fou n d A p p e l l a n t nu d e i n h e r be d an d tha t de sp i te h e r pro tes ts he pr oce ede d t o ha ve i nt er cou r sew i t h he r . L ew i s t es t i f i ed t hats he w ent t o t he p o l i c e s ta ti o n th e n e x t m o rn i n g a n d re p o rte d w h a t h a d tra n s p i re d . Th e G r and P r ai r i e Pol i ce D epart m enti ssued an em er gency p r ot ect i ve or der enj oi ni ng Appel l antf r om goi ng w i t hi n 500 f ee tofLe w i s’ s apa rt m entan d f r om
com m uni cat i ng w i t h her i n a t hr eat eni ng orhar assi ng m anner . A ppel l antw as in d ic t e d f o rk id n a p in g a n d a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u ltw it h a d e a d lyw e a p o n . O n J u ly 2 3 , 2 0 0 7 , A p p e l l a n t p l e a d e d g u i l ty to th e a s s a u l t c h a rg e , a n d th e tri a l c o u rt p l a c e d h i m o n d e fe rre d a d j u d i c a ti o n fo r te n y e a rs . T h e te rm s o f A p p e l l a n t’s pr obati on i ncl uded t he cond iti ons t hathe notcom m i ta cr i m i nal of f ense, t hat3 ... J e n n if e r M i c h e l l e G a l i n d o , a co u rto ffi c e r f o r t h e T a rr a n t C o u n ty

C om m uni t y Supe rvi si on a nd Cor r ec ti on Depart m ent , t es t i f i ed t hatA ppe l l ant 4 he r epo rtt o t he Tar r antCount y Com m uni t y S u p ervi si on a nd Cor r ec t i on D e p a rtm e n t u p o n re l e a s e fro m j a i l , a n d th a t h e h a v e n o c o n ta c t w i th L e w i s . U pon r el ease, A ppel l ant t el epho ned Lew i s, i nf or m ed her he ha d b een
r e le a s e d f r o m ja il, a n d t o ld h e r h e n e e d e d a r id e . L e w is t e s t if ie d t h a t s h e t o ld A ppel l antt hatt hey shoul d not speak t o each ot her . She sai d t hatdespi t e her t el l i n g h i m n o t t o c al l , A ppe l l antca l l ed hera num beroft i m est hatev eni ng. La te r th a t ni ght , Le w i s w asi n he rap art m entw at chi ng t el evi si on a nd t al ki ng
w i th a fri e n d o v e r th e p h o n e w h e n s h e s a i d s h e h e a rd “ a b i g b a n g a t th e d o o r.” S he sai d she hung up t he pho ne and i m m edi at el y di al ed 9 11 . Lew i s t est i f i ed t hats he gr abb ed a g un t hats he had pur cha se d aft er t he eve nt s ofJun e 8 a nd st ood i n t he cor nerw hi l e on t he pho ne w i t h t he 91 1 oper at or . Lew i s sai d t hat A ppe l l antco nt i nue d t o “b ang ” on her door , and he eve nt ual l y ki ck ed i n t he door and i tf l ung o pen . Le w i s sa i d t hat at t hat poi nt sh e f i r ed t w o s hot s, ne i t herof t hem hi t t i ng Appel l ant . She sa i d he f l ed t he apa rt m entbutl at erca l l ed heran d t ol d hert hat“i tw as on. ” The St at e’ s pet i t i on t o pr oce ed t o a dj udi ca ti on a l l ege d t hatA ppe l l ant vi ol at ed t he t er m s ofhi s com m uni t y super vi si on by go i ng t o Lew i s’ s r esi dence i n v i o l a t i o n o f a p ro te c ti v e o rd e r, fa i l i n g to re p o rt to h i s p ro b a ti o n o ffice r, 3w as r el eased on Jul y 23 , 20 07 , and i nst r uct ed t o r eport t o t he pr obati on off i ce

on J ul y 24, 2007 , butf ai l ed t o r epo rton t hatda y. 5 contact i ng Lew i s by t el epho ne, and con t act i ng heri n per son. A ppel l antpl eaded “n ott r ue”t o e ac h oft hes e al l ege d vi ol at i ons . The t r i al co urtf ound A ppe l l ant g u ilt yo fv io la t in g t h e t e r m s o fh is c o m m u n it ys u p e rv is io n , a d ju d ic a t e d h im gui l t y oft he aggr avat ed assaul t w i t h a deadl y w eapon of f ense, and sent enced h i m to fi fte e n y e a rsi n p ri s o n . T h i s a p p e a l fo l l o w e d . I n p a rt o f h i s so l e i ss u e , A p p e l l a n t a rgu e s th a t th e tr i a l co u rtab u se d i ts d i s c re ti o n i n re v o k i n g h i s c o m m u n i ty s u p e rv i s i o n . W e re v i e w th e tri a l c o u rt’s
re v o c a ti o n o rd e r u n d e r a n a b u s e o f d i s c re ti o n s ta n d a rd . Ca rdo n av. S tate , 665 S. W . 2d 492, 493 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 1984 ) ( en ban c) . The S ta te ’s b ur den of pr oofata com m uni t y s upe rvi si on r evo ca t i on he ar i ng i s a p r epo nde r anc e o ft he
e v i d e n c e . S e eLe ev. S tate , 952 S. W . 2d 894, 897 ( Te x. App . — Dal l a s 1997 , n o p e t .) . T h e t r ia l c o u rts e rv e s a s t h e s o le a r b it e ro ff a c tin p r o c e e d in g s o ft h is nat ur e, and an appel l at e court m ust vi ew t he evi dence pr esent ed i n a l i ght m ost fa v o ra b l e to t h e t r i a l c o u rt’so rd e r. Ga rre tt v. S tate , 619 S. W . 2d 172, 174 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 8 1 ). In t h is c a s e , t h e e v id e n c e s h o w e d t h a t A p p e lla n t h a d c o n t a c tw it h L e w is i n vi ol at i on of t he con di t i ons ofhi s com m uni t y s upe rvi si on. I n f ac t , A ppe l l ant doe s notco nt es tt hatheca l l ed Le w i s m ul t i pl e ti m e s, w entt o he rhous e t he6

ni ght ofJul y 23 , and ki cked i n her doo r . A ppel l antar gues onl y t hathi s conduct

w a s a “ m is t a k e n , b u t h e a rt -s ic k e f f o rt t o g e t b a c k t o g e t h e r w it h h e r .” W e h o ld th a t t h e S t a t e c a r ri e d i ts b u rde n an d tha t t h e tr i a l co u rtd i d n o t ab u se i ts d i s c r e t io n b yre v o k in g A p p e lla n t ’s c o m m u n it ys u p e rv is io n . W e o v e r r u le t h is p o rti o n o f A p p e l l a n t’ss o l e p o i n t. I n th e re m a i n d e r o f h i s s o l e p o i n t, A p p e l l a n t a rg u e s th a t th e tri a l c o u rt
a b u s e d i ts d i s c re ti o n b ys e n te n c i n g h i m t o f i fte e n y e a rs ’ c o n fi n e m e n t. W e di sa gr ee . I n or dert o pr es erve a c om pl ai ntfo r a p p e a l , a part y m us tha ve pr es ent ed t he t r i al co urtw i t h a t i m el y a nd s pec i f i c r equ es t, o b j e ct i on, or
m o ti o n . T e x . R . A p p . P . 3 3 .1 (a ). A s a g e n e ra l ru l e , a n a p p e l l a n t c a n n o t a s s e rt
er r orpe rt ai ni ng t o hi s se nt enc e or puni sh m ent w hen he f ai l ed t o r ai ses uch er r or i n th e t r i a l c o u rt. Merca do v. S tate , 718 S . W . 2d 291, 296 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 19 86 ) . A n i ssue concer ni ng t he sever i t y of a sent ence i s notpr eserved w hen t he def end ant ’ s con t ent i onsw er e not r ai se d i n t he t r i al cou rt by e i t hera m ot i on fo r n e w tri a l o r o b j e c t i o n . Ho l le yv. S tate , 167 S . W . 3d 546, 549 ( Tex. A p p .— H o u s to n [1 4 th D i s t.] 2 0 0 5 , p e t. re f’d ); Keithv. S tate , 975 S . W . 2d 433, 43 3– 34 ( Tex . A pp. — Beau m ont 19 98 , no pet. ) . Because A ppel l antdi d not r ai se
an obj ec t i on t hat t he f i f t ee n- yea r se nt enc e w asan ab us e o fdi sc r et i on, oran y obj ec t i on r el at i ng t o hi s se nt enc e, athi s r evo ca t i on he ar i ng, heha s w ai ved t he i s s u e o n a p p e a l . T e x . R . A p p . P . 3 3 .1 .7

B u t ev e n i f A p p e l l a n t ha d ti m e l yo bj e c ted , th e tr i a l co u rtd i d n o t ab u se i ts di sc r et i on. W her e, asi n t hi s ca se , t he puni sh m ent as se ss ed i s w i t hi n t he r ang e pr escr i bed byst at ut e, i ti s beyond t he pr ovi nce ofan appella te c o u rt t o pass upon t he pr opr i et y of t he sen te n c e . D a rdenv. S tate , 430 S. W . 2d 494, 496 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 1968 ) . Appel l ant ’ s f i ft ee n- yea rs ent ence f al l s w i t hi n t he st at ut or y r ange of pun i shm entf ort he second- degr ee f el ony o faggr avat ed
a s s a u lt w it h a d e a d ly w e a p o n t o w h ic h A p p e lla n tp le a d e d g u ilt y ; t h e r e f o r e , h is
se nt enc e i s notex ce ss i ve. Tex. Pen . Code Ann. §§ 12. 33, 22. 02( a) ( 2) ( V er non 2 0 0 3 & S u p p . 2 0 0 8 ); se ePugav. S tate , 916 S . W .2 d 5 4 7 , 550 ( Tex. A p p .— S a n A n to n i o 1 9 9 6 , n o p e t.). U n d e r th e s e c i rc u m s ta n c e s , th e tri a l c o u rt di d notab us e i t s di sc r et i on by r evo ki ng A ppe l l ant ’ s com m uni t y s upe rvi si on a nd im p o s in g a f if t e e n -y e a r s e n t e n c e . W e o v e r r u le t h e re m a in d e ro fA p p e lla n t ’s s o le p o i n t. H a v i n g o v e rru l e d A p p e l l a n t’s s o l e p o i n t, w e a ffir m th e tri a l c o u r t’s j u d g m e n t. P E R CU R I AM PA N EL: HO LM A N , LI V I N G STO N , an d DA U PH I N O T, JJ. DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: Nov e m be r6, 2008