No. 06-15-00077-CR IN THE SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS at Texarkana

______ ANTHONY SCOTT ROPER, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

______ Appealed from the 276 th Judicial District Court of

Titus County, Texas No. 16,480

APPELLEE’S BRIEF David Colley Texas Bar No. 24007027 Titus County Assistant District Attorney P.O. Box 249 Mt. Pleasant, TX 75456 Phone: (903) 577-6726 Fax: (903) 577-6729 Email: adacolley@hotmail.com ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE The State of Texas ACCEPTED 06-15-00077-CR SIXTH COURT OF APPEALS TEXARKANA, TEXAS 9/14/2015 4:00:02 PM DEBBIE AUTREY

CLERKIDE NTI TY OF PARTIE S & COUNSEL

The Sta te of Tex as , App el le e, ad op ts App el la nt ’s li stof p art ie s an d c ou ns el with t he ex cep ti onof Ap pe ll ee’s co un se l, d es ig na te d b el ow: App el le e, The Sta te of Tex as , is rep res en te d b y : Dav idCo ll ey , Ass is ta ntDis tri ctAtt orne y Titus Co un ty Courth ou se , Ann ex 10 0 West1 s t P.O. Box 24 9 Mt . Ple as an t, TX 75 45 6 Ph on e: (90 3) 57 7- 67 26 Fax : (9 03 ) 57 7- 67 29 Att orne y forSta te of Tex as Em ai l: ad aco ll ey @h ot m ai l.co m Inth is bri ef, Ap pe ll ee wi ll be referredto as “ th e St at e.” ANTHONY SCOTT ROPER wil l b e ref erre d t o a s “ Ro pe r” o r “ App el la nt .” The Sta te m en t o f Fac ts inth e Rep orte r’s Reco rdwil l b e ref erre d t o a s “ RR.”

“ CR” wil l d es ig na te refe ren ces to th e Cl erk ’s Reco rd .

Appel le e’ s B ri ef P age 2 of 34TABLE OF CONTENT S

IDENTITY OF PARTIES & COUNSEL...... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....2 TABLE OF CONTEN TS........ ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ......3 INDEX OF AUT HORITIES.......... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ......5 STATEMENT OF TH E CASE....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .....7 STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT...... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 7 ISSUES PR ESENTED. ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ...8 STATEMENT OF FACTS...... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .....9 SUMM ARY OF THE ARGUMENT. ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ......14 ARGUMENT...... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ...16 STANDARD OF REVIEW ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ..16 Is su e 1 : The T ri al Cour t di d no t err is deny in g Ro per’ s

Mot io n to Tra ns fer th e a djud ic at io n hea ri ng to t he 76 t h Dis tri ctCo urt. ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .17 Is su e 2 : The Due -Dil ig ence Defens e o f Arti cl e 4 2.1 2 s ecti on 24

of the Te xa s Co de o f Cri m in al Proc edur e do es no t ap pl y to rev oc at io ns oc curr in g w ith in the te rm of pro ba tio n o r in si tua tio ns w here the w ar ra nt o n the m ot io n to rev ok e/ adjudi ca te w as pro m ptl y s erv ed. ..20 2.A. THE 42 .12 SEC. 24 DUE-DILIGENCE DEFENSE DOE S NOT APPLY TO REVOCATIONS W HICH ARE CONCLUDED DURING THE DE FENDANT’ S TERM OF PROBATION.......... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ...20 Appel le e’ s B ri ef P age 3 of 342.B . THE PROBATION OFFICER ATTEMPTED TO CONTACT ROPER WH EN ROPER DID NOT REPORT.......... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....23 2.C . ANY LACK-OF-DUE-DILIGENCE DE FENSE IS NOT AVA ILABLE FOR THE FAILURE TO PAY ALLEGATIONS...... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 25 Is su e 3 : The T ri al Cour t di d no t ab us e it s di sc reti on by

fin di ng tha t Rop er fa il ed to pa y c ou rt-o rder ed fi nes an d/ or tha t he w as ab le to p ay co urt c os ts an d fee s. .27 3.A. THE STAT E DOES NO T HAVE THE BURDEN TO SHOW

A DEFEND ANT’ S ABILITY TO PAY FINES AND RESTITUTION... ....... ....... ....27 3.B . ROPER HAD THE ABILITY T O PAY..... ....... ..28 CONCLUSION......... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....31 PRAYER.......... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ......33 CERTIFI CATE OF COMPLIANCE........... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....33 CERTIFI CATE OF SERVICE......... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .34

Appel le e’ s B ri ef P age 4 of 34INDEX O F AUTHORI TI ES CASES 1. Bea rden v. Geor

gi a , 46 1 U.S. 6 60 (19 83 )......... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .29 2. Ca rdon a v . Stat e , 66 5 S .W .2d49 2 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 84 )......... ....... ....... ..16 3. Co bb v. Stat e , 85 1 S .W .2d87 1 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 93 )......... ....... ....... ....... 16 4. Co nn ol lyv. Stat e , 98 3 S .W .2d73 8 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 99 )......... ....... ....... .20 5. Dav ila v . Stat e , 65 1 S .W .2d79 7 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 83 )......... ....... ......17, 1 8 6. Gar ci a v . Stat e , 38 7 S .W .3d20 (Tex . Cri m . App . 20 12 )......... ..16 , 20 , 25 , 26 7. Gip so n v . Stat e , 42 8 S .W .3d10 7 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 14 )......... ....... ....... ....27 8. Li vel

y v. Sta te , 33 8 S .W .3d14 0 (Te x. Ap p.— Tex ark an a 20 11 , no pe t.)............. ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .16 , 29 9. Mat ti as v. Stat e , 73 1 S .W .2d93 6 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 87 )......... ....... ....... ....16 10 . Pea co ck v. Sta te , 77 S.W .3d28 5 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 02 )......... ....... .....20 , 21 11 . Rick

el s v. Sta te , 20 2 S .W .3d75 9 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 06 )......... ....... ....... ....16 12 . Rod

ri gu ezv. Stat e , 80 4 S .W .2d51 6 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 91 )......... ....... ......20 13 . Th oma s v. Sta te , 37 9 S .W .3d43 6 (Te x. Ap p.—Am ari ll o 20 12 , no pe t.)............. ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 16 14 . W he at v. Stat e , 16 5 S .W .3d80 2 (Te x. Ap p.— Tex ark an a 20 05 , pet . di sm ’d)........ ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .....20 15 . W is e v. Sta te , 47 7 S .W .2d57 8 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 72 )......... ....... ....... ....... .18

Appel le e’ s B ri ef P age 5 of 34STATUT ES AND CODES

1. Tex . Cod e Cri m . Pro c. art . 42 .12 sec . 5(b )......... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .16 2. Tex . Cod e Cri m . Pro c. art42 .12 sec . 10 (a)............. ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ...17 3. Tex . Cod e Cri m . Pro c. art . 42 .12 sec . 21 (c)............. ....... ....... ....... ....15 , 27 , 29 4. Tex . Cod e Cri m . Pro c. art42 .12 sec . 24 ....... ....... ....... ..3, 8 , 14 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 25 5. Tex . Gov ’t Cod e se c. 24 .17 8( d) ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ......18, 1 9 6. Tex . R. App . P. 9.4 (i) (3 )......... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .33 CONSTI TUTI ON 1. Tex . Con st . art . V sec. 1 1............. ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ..18

Appel le e’ s B ri ef P age 6 of 34STATE MENT OF TH E CASE

Ro pe r ap pe al s the Trial Co urt’s g ran t o f th e St at e’s Mo ti on to Adju di cat e. CR 4 7. He was pl acedonde ferr edad jud ic at io n fo r fi ve (5) y ears on Sep te m be r 7, 20 10 forth e o ffen se of F ai lu re t o R eg is te r as a Sex Offen de r. CR 1 8 - 1 9. OnApri l 24 , 20 15 th e St at e’s Mo ti on to Adju di cat e was he ard . RR V 1 P 1 . The Tri al Co urt pr oc eed edto ad

jud ic at io n a ndsen te nc edRo pe r to th ree ( 3) y ears co nf in em en t i n th e Tex as Depa rtment o f Cri m in al Ju st ic e. CR 5 3 - 5 5.

STATE MENT REG ARDING ORAL ARGUMENT The Sta te waiv es ora l ar gu m en t.

Appel le e’ s B ri ef P age 7 of 34IS SUE PRESENT ED FOR REVIE W

Is su e 1 : The T ri al Cour t di d no t err is deny in g Ro per’ s Mo tio n to

Tra ns fer t he a djud ic at io n hea ri ng to t he 7 6 t h Dis tri ct Co urt. Is su e 2 : The Due -Dil ig ence Defens e o f Arti cl e 4 2.1 2 s ecti on 24

of the Te xa s Co de o f Cri m in al Proc edur e do es no t ap pl y to rev oc at io ns oc curr in g w ith in the te rm of pro ba tio n o r in si tua tio ns w here the w ar ra nt o n the m ot io n to rev ok e/ adjudi ca te w as pro m ptl y s erv ed. Is su e 3 : The T ri al Cour t di d no t ab us e it s di sc reti on by

fin di ng tha t Rop er fa il ed to pa y c ou rt-o rder ed fi nes an d/ or tha t he w as ab le to p ay co urt c os ts an d fee s.

Appel le e’ s B ri ef P age 8 of 34STATE MENT OF FACTS

Ant ho ny Scot t Ro pe r was pl acedon de ferr edad jud ic at io n o n S ep te m

be r 7, 20 10 forth e o ffen se of F ai lu re t o R eg is te r as a Sex Offen de r. CR 1 8 - 2 0. Th e or de r was en te redby the th enpre si di ng jud ge of t he 76 th Ju di ci al Dis tri ct , Ji m m y L. Whi te . CR 1 8 - 1 9. Th e te rm of d eferredad

jud ic at io n was fiv e y ears . CR 1 8. Am on g o th er co nd it io ns of c omm un ity supe rv is io n, Ro pe r was requi redto rep ort to hi s p ro ba ti on off

ic er ea chm on th an d p ay

co st s, fi ne s an d fe es . CR 2 7 - 3 0. On Ja nu ary 21 , 20 15 , withi n t he term of p ro ba ti on , th e St at e fi le d i ts m ot io n t o ad jud ic at e th e una dju di cat edoff en se . CR 3 1 - 3 3. Th atsame day th e co urt i ss ue d a cap ia s fo r Ro pe r’s arre st . CR 3 4. Ro pe r was arre st edon th e warra nton Jan ua ry 30 , 20 15 . CR 3 6. Th e St at e’s m ot io n a ll eg edth atRo pe r vi ol at edth e co nd it io ns of h is pr ob at io n b y

fai li ng to rep ort t o h is pro ba ti on off ic er fo r th e m on th s o f Mar ch , Apr il an d S ep te m

be r of 20 13 an d b y

fai li ng to pa y

co urt-o rd eredfees an d pr ob at io n s erv ic e fee s fr om Feb ru ary, 20 13 th ro ug h J anua ry , 20 15 , when th e m ot io n was fil ed . CR 3 1 - 3 3. Th e h eari ng on th e St at e’s m ot io n t o a dju di cat e was he ldon Apri l 2 4, 2 01 5. CR63 . Ju dg e Ro be rt R ol st on of t he 26 7 th Ju di ci al Dis tri ct pr es id edov er the he ari ng on th e St at e’s m ot io n t o a dju di cat e. RR V 1 P 1. Ro pe r fi le d aMo ti on to Tran sf er the ad jud ic at io n h eari ng to th e 7 6 th Ju di ci al Dis tri ct . CR 4 5 - 4 6. J ud ge Ro ls to n d en ie d R op er’s m ot io n. CR49 . In d oi ng so , he Appel le e’ s B ri ef P age 9 of 34sa id , “ . . . I thi nkit ’s pre tty well co m m on kn owl ed ge . . . th atJu dg e Wood so n a nd I ha ve co nc urren t juris di ct io n. We hadjuri sd ic ti on on all cas es . W e h an dl e eac h ot he r’s cas es , han dl e th e sa m e cri m in al cas es , andso I fin d tha t . . . y our m ot io n wil l b e d en ie d.” RR V 1 P 5 L 3 - 9. Th e Tria l Co urt fo un d t he all eg at io ns tru e an d se nt en cedRo pe r to th ree years c on fin em en t. CR 53 - 55 . Inth e h eari ng on th e m ot io n t o a dju di cat e Ro pe r’s de ferr edad jud ic at io n, the St at e cal le d R an ce Ho ck ad ay as i ts witne ss . RR V 1 P 8 L 1 - 1 2. Ho ck ad ay is a co m m un ity supe rv is io n o ffi cer f

orTitus Co un ty, who supe rv is es th e se x o ffen de r cas e lo adan d wh o s up erv is edAntho ny Rop er. RR V 1 P 8 L 1 3 - P 9 L 7 . Hoc ka da y

tes ti fie d t ha t Ro pe r was curren tl y onpro ba ti on an d was requi redto rep ort m on th ly andto pa y cert ai n fe es m on th ly am on g o th er co nd it io ns of pr ob at io n. RRV 1 P 9 L 15 - 22 ; V 1 P 10 L 1 - 5 . Hock ad ay furth er t es ti fie d t ha t Ro pe r di d n otrep ort t o t he pro ba ti on de pa rtment i n M arch , Apri l o r Sep te m be r of 20 13 . RR V 1 P 9 L 23 - 25 . Nor d idRo pe r pa y th e co urt-o rd eredth irt y -two do ll ars ($3 2.0 0) a m on th or t he si xt y do ll ars ($6 0.0 0) a m on th forpro ba ti on se rv ic e fee s fo r th e m on th s o f Feb ru ary, Marc h, Ap ril , May, Ju ne , Ju ly, Aug us t, Sep te m be r, Octo be r, Nov em

be r, Decem

be r of 20 13 ; J anua ry , Feb ru ary, Marc h, Apr il , May, Ju ne , Ju ly, Aug us t, Se pt em be r, Octo be r, Nov em

be r, Decem

be r of 20 14 ; an d J anua ry

of 2 01 5. RR

V 1 P 1 0 L 1 - 14 . Hock ad ay tes ti fie d t ha t Ro pe r Appel le e’ s B ri ef P age 10 o f 34ha d n otbe enem pl oyed fo r a l it tl e o ve r two y ears , andat t he las t h om e v is it Hoc ka da y

fou ndRo pe r lo ok in g a s i f he ha d ju stwok enup at 2 :3 0 o r 3: 00 inth e aft ern oo n. RRV 1 P 1 0 L 2 1 - P 11 L 5. Tha t l as t h om e v is itwas i n Dec em be r of 20 14 . RR V 1 P 1 1 L 3 - 11 . On cr os s- ex am in at io n Ho ck ad ay tes ti fie d t ha t h e d idno t m ak e a h om e v is it to Ro pe r in Marc h o r Apr il of 2 01 3 b utdi d c on ta cthi m inMay. RR V 1 P 12 L 5 - 15 . Hock ad ay

vi si te d R op er’s res id en ce i n Oct ob er o f 20 13 aft er Ro pe r di d n ot rep ort i n S ep te m

be r. RR V 1 P 12 L 16 - P 13 L 2. Afte r th e fi rs t two m on th s tha t Ro pe r di d n otrep ort, Ho ck ad ay wentto fin d h im . RR V 1 P 1 8 L 1 0 - 1 2. Hoc ka da y

di d n otreca ll Ro pe r gi vi ng an y ex cu se for

no t re po rti ng ot he r th an , pe rh ap s, tha t h e d idno t h av e a ri de ; Ro pe r sa idno th in g a t tha t t im e ab ou t thi nk in g th athe was e xc us edfro m rep orti ng . RR V 1 P 1 8 L 3 - 14 . Hock ad ay co nduc te d ho m e v is it s fo r Ro pe r “

jus t ab ou t ev ery m on th .” RR V 1 P 14 L 24 - P 15 L 1. Hoc ka da y

tes ti fie d t ha t o nc e Ro pe r qu ithi s jo b h e d idno t h av e an y in co m e. RR V 1 P 16 L 14 - 15 . Rop er’s ex cu se forno t h av in g ajob was tha t h is cri m in al hi st ory an d C OPD m ad e itdi ffi cu ltforhi m to fin d ajob . RR V 1 P 1 5 L 9 - 13 . Howev er, Ro pe r ne ve r sh owe d a ny pro of or m ed ic al ve rif

ic at io n o f a COPD di ag no si s. RR

V 1 P 1 5 L 1 4 - 1 9. Ab ou t n in ety -fi ve pe rcen t (9 5%) of Ho ck ad ay ’s se x- of fen de r cas e lo adis em

pl oyed. RR

V 1 P 1 6 L 2 2 - 2 5. Ro pe r ha d b een Appel le e’ s B ri ef P age 11 o f 34em

pl oyed atPil gr im ’s forqu it e a wh il e b utwas fi redforge tt in g i nt o a n a rg um en t with a no th er em

pl oyee. RR V 1 P 19 L 9 - 1 2. He the n wo rk edat B ig Tex Tra il ers fo r a few m on th s. RR

V 1 P 1 9 L 9 - 12 . He qu itth e job at B ig Tex. RR V 1 P 1 9 L 3 - 6 . In Ho ck ad ay ’s op in io n, Ro pe r was no t l oo ki ng ve ry ha rdfora job . RR V 1 P 19 L 16 - 24 . Ro pe r te st ifi edinhi s d efen se . RR V 1 P 2 0 L 2 4. He t es ti fie d t ha t i n Feb ru ary, 20 13 , Hock ad ay to ldhi m to rep ort b y

ph on e an d i n M arch he cal le d a nd le ft am es sa ge . RR V 1 P 2 2 L 2 - 4. In Apri l, Ro pe r cal le d the pro ba ti on de pa rtment andsp ok e to Hock ad ay by tele ph on e an d Ho ck ad ay “ ch ewed[hi m ] ou t” forno t re po rti ng . RR V 1 P 2 2 L 4 - 15 . Reg ard in g h is em

pl oym en t, Ro pe r te st ifi edth athe qu itwork in g a t Bi g Tex be cau se he th ou gh t h e wou ldbe hi redba ckat P il gr im ’s, th athe wou ldbe hi redon on ce h e fi ll edou t an ap pl ic at io n. RRV 1 P 2 3 L 1 1 - 1 5. Acc or di ng to Ro pe r, aft er he qu itwork in g a t Bi g Tex an d wen t t o P il gr im ’s he d is co ve redth ey no lo ng er hi redsex off

en de rs . RR V 1 P 2 3 L 1 5 - 2 0. Ro pe r ha d wo rk edat P il gr im ’s pr ev io us ly, fo r fi ve y ears , with t he m kn owi ng of h is cri m in al hi st ory . RR V 1 P 2 3 L 21 - P 24 L 1. Ro pe r te st ifi edth athe wentto th e Tex as W orkf or ce Co m mis si on an d t ha t h e tr ie d t o fi ndjob s. RR V 1 P 2 4 L 2 2 - 2 5. Th e o nl y sp eci fic em pl oym en t h e te st ifi edto trying to ob ta inwas a t Pr ie fert ’s andby ask in g alo cal Appel le e’ s B ri ef P age 12 o f 34at to rn ey

forem pl oym en t b as edup on hi s ex pe rie nc e in th e p ris on law l ib rary. RR V 1 P 2 5 L 1 1 - 2 0, V 1 P 28 L 15 - 19 . On cr os s- ex am in at io n, Ro pe r adm it te d t ha t h e qui t the Big Tex jo b b efo re he ev enha d ano th er job . RR V 1 P 3 1 L 2 3 - 2 4. He al so co nf irmed th atinApri l o f 20 13 , Hock ad ay

m ad e co nt actwith h im

th ro ug h a no th er p ro ba ti on er wh om he worke d wi th at B ig Tex, b y tel li ng hi m

th atHock ad ay

ha d a sk edab ou t h im . RR V 1 P 31 L 7 - 1 3. Itwas a fte r th atm es sa ge was re la te d t o R op er tha t h e cal le d Hoc ka da y . RR V 1 P 3 1 L 1 1 - 1 3. On re bu tt al , Hock ad ay

tes ti fie d t ha t h e m ad e h om e v is it s fo r Ro pe r in Mar chan d Ap ril of 2 01 3 b utth atRo pe r was no t p res en t. RR V 1 P 3 4 L 2 1 - P 35 L 2.

Appel le e’ s B ri ef P age 13 o f 34SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Is su e 1 : By sta tu te , th e 7 6 th an d 2 76 th Ju di ci al Dis tri ctCo urts ha ve co nc urren t juris di ct io n. Li ke wis e, di st ric t co urts inm ul ti pl e-co urt co un ti es ha ve be enall owe d t o p res id e o ve r th e rev oc at io n o f co m m un ity supe rv is io ns th atth e ot he r co urts have ord ered . The 2 76 th Ju di ci al Dis tri ctdi d n oterr b y refu si ng to tra ns fer the he ari ng on th e m ot io n t o a dju di cat e ag ai ns t Ro pe r to th e 7 6 th Ju di ci al Dis tri ct . Is su e 2 : Th e Due -Dil ig en ce Defe ns e o f Arti cl e 4 2.1 2 s ect io n 2 4 o f th e Tex as Co de of C riminal Pro cedur e rel at es to th e d il ig en ce o f th e St at e to serve a cap ia s tha t h as be enis su edan d o nl y on th e co nd it io ns of f

ai lure t o re po rt a nd fai lu re t o re m ai n wi th in a cert ai n l oc at io n. Ro pe r’s arg um en t at te m pt s t o e qu at e th e requi rem en t t o g o t o t he de fen da nt ’s res id en ce t o s erv e th e cap ia s t o pe rfo rm in g aho m e v is itdu rin g the term of p ro ba ti on forth e m on th th atth e pr ob at io ne r fai le d t o re po rt. Su chanin te rp ret at io n i s i nc orrect . The Du e-Di li ge nc e Defen se do es no t ap pl y

to Ro pe r’s si tu at io n e ithe r be cau se he was re vo ke d dur in g th e te rm of h is pro ba ti on or b ecau se th ere a re n o a ll eg at io ns th atth e St at e fai le d t o di li ge nt ly execu te th e cap ia s. Nev erthe le ss , th e ev id en ce s ho ws tha t the pro ba ti on de pa rtment c on ti nu edto m ak e h om e v is it s ea chm on th aft er the m on th s R op er fai le d t o re po rt. Th e Tria l Co urt wo ul d n otha ve ab us edit s d is cret io n i n fi nd in g Appel le e’ s B ri ef P age 14 o f 34th atRo pe r fai le d t o p ro ve th e aff irmativ e d efen se . Is su e 3 : Whi le Arti cl e 4 2.1 2 s ect io n 2 1( c) o f th e Tex as Co de of C riminal Pro cedur e requi res th e St at e to pro ve th ata de fen da ntha s the ab il ity to pa y be fo re a co urt ca n re vo ke hi s p ro ba ti on forfai lu re t o p ay co urt co st s, s up erv is io n fe es an d ot he r fee s, tha t d oe s n otap pl y to fin es an d re st itut io n. Pa rt o f wha t Ro pe r fai le d t o pa y was h is fin e. Inth atreg ard , th e St at e d idno t h av e to pro ve hi s ab il ity to pa y . Nev erthe le ss , du e to th e fac ts th atRo pe r pa idno ren t, h adno bi ll s, h adwork ed be fo re b utqu ithi s l as t jo b, the Trial Co urt wo ul d n othave ab us edit s d is cret io n i n fin di ng th atRo pe r ha d t he ab il ity to pa y bu t fa il edto m ak e b on a fi de effo rts to se ekem pl oym en t o r othe rwis e o bt ai n t he fun ds to pa y .

Appel le e’ s B ri ef P age 15 o f 34ARGUMENT

STANDARD OF REVIEW The ad jud ic at io n o f gu il t o n ade ferr edad jud ic at io n i s re vi ewedfor ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Tex . Cod e Cri m . Pro c. art . 42 .12 sec . 5(b ); Th oma s v. Sta te , 37 9 S.W .3d43 6,4 42 (Tex . App .—Am ari ll o 2 01 2, n o p et .). See Rick el s v. Sta te , 20 2 S.W .3d75 9, 7 63 (Tex . Cri m . App . 20 06 ). The S ta te m us t s ho w by a pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce tha t the de fen da ntvi ol at eda te rm of c omm un ity supe rv is io n a ll eg edinit s m ot io n t o p ro ceedto ad jud ic at io n. Se e Co bb v. Stat e , 85 1 S .W .2d87 1, 8 73 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 93 ). The e vi de nc e is vi ewedis th e li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e ru li ng of t he tri al co urt. Ca rdon a v . Stat e , 66 5 S .W .2d49 2, 49 3 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 84 ). The tria l co urt i s the so le jud ge of t he witne ss es , th ei r cred ib il ity

an d t he weig htto be gi ve n t o t he ir t es ti m on y an d m ay acce ptor r eject an y or a ll of awitne ss ’s tes ti m on y . Li vel y v. Sta te , 33 8 S .W .3d14 0, 1 45 -4 6 (Te x. App .—Tex ark an a 2 01 1, n o p et .), cit in g Mat ti as v. Stat e , 73 1 S .W .2d93 6, 9 40 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 87 ). If a s in gl e g ro un d o f th e rev oc at io n i s s up po rte d b y a pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce, the n t he tri al co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n. Se e Gar ci a v . Stat e , 38 7 S .W .3d20 , 26 (Tex . Cri m . App . 20 12 ); Li vel y , 33 8 S .W .3dat 14 2.

Appel le e’ s B ri ef P age 16 o f 34Is su e 1 : The T ri al Cour t di d no t err is deny in g Ro per’ s Mo tio n to Tra ns fer t he a djud ic at io n hea ri ng to t he 7 6 t h Dis tri ct Co urt. Ro pe r m ov edfortra ns fer o f th e ad jud ic at io n h eari ng to th e 7 6 th Ju di ci al Dis tri ctbe cau se Ju dg e Ro ls to n was no t the jud ge of t he co urt wh ere R op er en te red hi s p le a o rig in al ly. CR 4 5. Fo r hi s m ot io n, h e rel ie d upo n Art ic le 42 .12 sec ti on 10 (a) o f th e Tex as Co de of C riminal Pro cedur e, whi chread s, i n re le va ntpart, a s fo ll ows : Sec. 1 0.(a ) Onl y

th e co urt i n wh ic h t he de fen da ntwas trie d m ay gra nt co m m un ity supe rv is io n, i m

po se co nd it io ns , rev ok e th e co m m un ity supe rv is io n, o r di sc ha rg e th e d efen da nt , un le ss th e jud ge ha s tra ns ferr edjuri sd ic ti onof t he cas e to an othe r co urt wi th th e la tt er’s co ns en t. The Trial Co urt d en ie d R op er’s m ot io n. CR49 . In d oi ng so , th e Tria l Co urt co m m en te d t ha t h e an d J ud ge W oo ds onha ve co nc urren t juris di ct io n o n a ll cas es an d ro ut in el y

ha nd le th e sa m e cri m in al cas es . RR V 1 P 5 L 3 - 9 . In Dav ila v . Stat e , th e d efen da ntwas p la cedonpro ba ti on by the 72 n d Dis tri ctCo urt. 6 51 S.W .2d79 7, 7 98 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 83 ). The m ot io n t o rev ok e h is pro ba ti on was h eardby the 23 7 th Dis tri ctCo urt. Id . An o rd er tra ns ferr in g the cas e to th e 2 37 th Dis tri ctCo urt was da te d t he da y of t ria l o f th e m ot io n t o re vo ke bu t n otfil edun ti l a wee k- an d- a-h al f la te r. Id . at 7 99 . The Co urt Appel le e’ s B ri ef P age 17 o f 34he ldth atev enif the tra ns fer o rd er was no t v al id , th e jud ge s co ul d e xc ha ng e

be nc he s as all owe d b y

Arti cl e V, sec ti on 11 of t he Texa s C on st itut io n, wh ic h pr ov id es fordi st ric t ju dg es to ex ch an ge di stric ts or h ol d c ou rts foreach ot he r whe n the y

de em itex pe di en t. Id . The Co urt fu rth er n ot edth atfora di stric t co urt t o pr es id e o ve r a cas e in pl ace o f an ot he r co urt, n o o rd er o r do ck etsh eeten try sh owi ng th e rea so n fo r th e ex ch an ge of t he be nc he s i s n eces sa ry . Id . In W is e v. Sta te , th e d efen da ntwas p la cedon pro ba ti onby the jud ge of t he 30 th Ju di ci al Dis tri ctan d re vo ke d b y th e jud ge of t he 89 th Ju di ci al Dis tri ct , bo th of W ic hi taCo un ty. 47 7 S .W .2d57 8, 5 79 -8 0 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 72 ). Rel y in g o n a le tt er i n the reco rdfro m

th e p res id in g ju dg e o f th e admin is tra ti ve di st ric t wh ic h in di cat edth atth e d is tri ctjud ge s o f W ic hi taCo un ty w ere a ss ig ne d t o e ach ot he r’s cas es , th e Co urt h el d t ha t, fo r pr act ic al pu rp os es , th e reg ul ar jud ge of t he 89 th Ju di ci al Dis tri ctwas the reg ul ar jud ge of t he 30 th Ju di ci al Dis tri ctas we ll . Id . at 58 0. The co nc urren t juris di ct io n b etweenth e 7 6 th an d 2 76 th Ju di ci al Dis tri ct Co urts is co nf

irmed in th e st atut es crea ti ng th e co urts . Sect io n 2 4.1 78 (d ) of th e Tex as Gov ern m en t Co de st at es as f ol lo ws: (d ) InCam

p, M orris , andTitus co un ti es , th e 7 6 th Dis tri ctCo urt h as co nc urren t juris di ct io n wi th th e 2 76 th Dis tri ctCo urt. Th e jud ge s o f th e Appel le e’ s B ri ef P age 18 o f 34co urts m ay tra ns fer any case to be tri edinCam p C ou nt y , Mo rri s Co un ty, orTitus Co un ty w ith t he co ns en t o f th e co urt t o wh ic h t he cas e is be in g t ran sf

erre d. Eac h ju dg e m ay

si t i n t he ot he r co urt witho uttra ns ferr in g t he cas e. It i s thi s co nc urren t juris di ct io n tha t was ex erci se d wh enJu dg e Ro ls to n p res id ed ov er the m ot io n t o a dju di cat e, whi chwas o rig in al ly ord eredinth e 7 6 th Ju di ci al Dis tri ctby Jud ge Whi te . The s ta tu te pro vi de s fo r th e fl ex ib il ity th atis ne ces sa ry fo r th e ti m el y

res ol ut io n o f cas es inco un ti es , li ke Titus Co un ty, whe re the Dis tri ct Ju dg es sh are juris di ct io n a ndare re sp on si bl e fo r m ul ti pl e co un ti es . The Tri al Co urt d idno t err in de nyin g R op er’s Mo ti on to Tran sf er.

Appel le e’ s B ri ef P age 19 o f 34Is su e 2 : The Due -Dil ig ence Defens e o f Arti cl e 4 2.1 2 s ecti on 24 of the Te xa s Co de o f Cri m in al Proc edur e do es no t ap pl y to rev oc at io ns oc curr in g w ith in the te rm of pro ba tio n o r in si tua tio ns w here the w ar ra nt o n the m ot io n to rev ok e/ adjudi ca te w as pro m ptl y s erv ed. 2.A. THE 42 .12 SEC. 24 DUE-DILIGENCE DE FENSE DOES NOT APPLY TO REVOCATIONS W HICH ARE CONCLUDED DURING THE DEFENDANT ’S T ERM OF PR OBATION. In20 03 , th e Leg is la ture l im it edth e due di li ge nc e d efen se for rev oc at io ns . See W he at v. Stat e , 16 5 S .W .3d80 2, 8 05 (Tex . App .—Tex ark an a 2 00 5, p et . di sm ’d). Befo re the am en dm en ts , a tri al co urt d idno t h av e juri sd ic ti on to rev ok e a co m m un ity supe rv is io n unl es s the m ot io n was fil edan d t he cap ia s i ss ue d b efo re th e co m m un ity supe rv is io n e xp ire d a ndth e St at e ex erci se d d il ig en ce i n h av in g t he rev oc at io n h eari ng . Pea co ck v. Sta te , 77 S.W .3d28 5, 2 87 -8 8 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 02 ). The S ta te ’s fai lu re t o e xe cu te th e cap ia s wi th du e d il ig en ce was a de fen se . Co nn ol lyv. Stat e , 98 3 S .W .2d73 8, 7 41 (Tex . Cri m . App . 19 99 ). Onc e th e de fen da ntrai se d the is su e, th e St at e wou ldha ve th e b ur de n t o p ro ve di li ge nc e. Rod ri gu ezv. Stat e , 80 4 S .W .2d51 6, 5 17 -1 8 (Te x. Cr im . App . 19 91 ). Thi s co m m on -law requi rem en t tha t the Sta te di li ge nt ly pur su e th e p ro se cu ti on of a m ot io n t o re vo ke co m

m un ity supe rv is io n h as be enrep la cedby Arti cl e 4 2.1 2 Sect io n 2 4 o f th e Tex as Co de of C riminal Pro cedur e (h erei na fte r refe rredto as t he Appel le e’ s B ri ef P age 20 o f 34“ Due -Dil ig en ce Defe ns e”). Gar ci a v . Stat e , 38 7 S .W .3d20 , 20 -2 1 (Te x. Cr im .

App . 20 12 ). The co m m on -la w def

en se de al t wi thth e co urt’s co nt in ui ng juri sd ic ti on . See Pea co ck v. Sta te , 77 S.W .3d28 5, 2 88 -8 9 (Te x. Cr im . App . 20 02 ) ov erru li ng re co gn iz ed

byGar ci a v . Stat e , 38 7 S .W .3d20 (Tex . Cri m . App . 20 12 ). It r equi red th atth e St at e sh ow tha t the co urt re ta in edjuri sd ic ti on to rev ok e a d efen da nt ’s co m m un ity supe rv is io n wh enth e te rm of p ro ba ti on ha d e xp ire d. Se e Gar ci a , 38 7 S.W .3dat 2 2. Th e co di fic at io n o f th e d efen se li m it edwhatex is te d at co m m on law. See Gar ci a, 38 7 S .W .3dat 2 5. Itdi d n otcrea te a ne w def en se , or e xp an d t he ol d on e, ba se d o n wh ethe r orno t the pro ba ti on de pa rtment c on du ct edm on th ly hom e vi si ts du rin g t he pro ba ti on term . The af firm at iv e d efen se of Art ic le 42 .12 Sect io n 24 of t he Texa s C od e o f Cri m in al Pro cedur e is no t ap pl ic ab le as ade fen se to a rev oc at io n wh enth atrev oc at io n o ccu rs du rin g t he term of p ro ba ti on . If i t i s t oo bro adto co nc lu de th atth e Due -Dil ig en ce Defe ns e is no t ap pl ic ab le inan y

rev oc at io n o ccu rri ng be fo re the ex pi rat io n o f th e te rm of pr ob at io n, atth e v ery le as t i t i s o nl y ap pl ic ab le to th e eff

orts m ad e to ex ecu te th e is su edcap ia s o n t he m ot io n t o re vo ke . The s ta tu te st at es , “ . . . sup erv is io n o ffi cer, pe ace o ffi cer, o r ot he r of fic er wi th th e p owe r of

arre st unde r a w ar ra nt i ss ued by a jud ge fo r tha t al le ge d v io la tio n fai le d t o c on ta ctor a tt em ptto co nt actth e Appel le e’ s B ri ef P age 21 o f 34de fen da ntinpe rs on at t he de fen da nt ’s las t kno wn re si de nc e ad dr es s o r la stkn own

em pl oym en t ad dr es s, . . .” Tex. C od e Cri m . Pro c. art42 .12 sec . 24 . The p la in la ng ua ge of t he st atut e ad dr es se s the Sta te ’s di li ge nc e in ex ecu ti ng th e warra nt whi chha d b eenis su edfora m ot io n t o re vo ke pro ba ti on ba se d o n the gro un d o f fai lu re t o re po rt. Itdo es no t re qu ire a pr ob at io n o ffi cer t o a tt em ptto co nt actth e pr ob at io ne r to in qu ire as t o wh y he di d n otrep ort. Itin cl ud es pe ace o ffi cers an d ot he rs with t he po wer t o a rres t u nd er the warran t i ss ue d. Se e id . Forth e Due Dil ig en ce Defe ns e st atut e to requi re a p eace off ic er t o m ak e a h om e v is itdu rin g th e te rm of p ro ba ti on is no ns en si cal . Rop er’s arg um en t as su m es th atth e Due Dil ig en ce d efen se pre ve nt s a r ev oc at io n o n t he se all eg at io ns if the pro ba ti on of fic er fa il s t o c on du cta ho m e v is iton th e m on th th atth e p ro ba ti on er m is se d rep orti ng . Rop er’s arg um en t i s m is pl acedinth atreg ard . The Du e-Di li ge nc e Defen se of Art ic le 42 .12 sec ti on 24 of t he Texa s C od e o f Cri m in al Pro cedur e is no t ap pl ic ab le to th e ad

jud ic at io n o f Ro pe r’s de ferr edbe cau se th ere a re n o al le ga ti on s, o r ev id en ce t o s up po rt acla im , th atth e St at e fai le d t o d il ig en tl y pu rs ue ex ecu ti on of t he cap ia s i ss ue d fo r Ro pe r’s arre st .

Appel le e’ s B ri ef P age 22 o f 342.B . THE PROBATION OFFICER ATTEMPTED TO CONTACT ROPER

W HEN ROPER DID NOT REPORT. Eve n i f Arti cl e 4 2.1 2 S ect io n 2 4 o f th e Tex as Co de of C riminal Pro cedur e ap pl ie s as Ro pe r arg ue s, the re i s ev id en ce t o s up po rt afin di ng th atRo pe r’s pr ob at io n o ffi cer d idm ak e v is it s t o R op er’s res id en ce. Pro ba ti on off ic er, Ran ce Hoc ka da y

tes ti fie d o n c ro ss -ex am in at io n a s fo ll ows : Q: Whathapp en edon Marc h o f 20 13 ? A: He fa il edto rep ort. Q: Di d youco nt acthi m

th en ? A: I d o n otbe li ev e I at te m pt eda ho m e v is itwhen he di d n otrep ort, n o, s ir. Q: Whatab ou t Ap ril ? A: Ma rch or Ap ril , no , si r. I di d c on ta cthi m th eninMay. Q: So itwas n otun ti l M ay of ‘13 th aty outri edto co nt acthi m ? A: Yes , si r. Q: Th enag ai n i n S ep te m be r of 20 13 , y oust at edth athe fai le d t o re po rt? A: Yes . Q: Whatare the cir cu m st an ces of t ha t? A: He jus t d idno t re po rt t ha t m on th . Q: Di d youco nt acthi m ? Appel le e’ s B ri ef P age 23 o f 34A: No t tha t m on th . I di d t he fol lo win g m on th an d g othi m in . Q: Ho w di d youco nt acthi m th en ? A: I b el ie ve I wen t b y

hi s h ou se . His ap art m en t. Q: Th e fo ll owi ng m on th , y ou ’re referr in g t o Oct ob er? A: Yes , si r.

. . . Q: Ho w m an y

ti m es do y outh in k youwentby to s ee i f Ant ho ny way ho m e? A: I d ida ho m e v is itjus t ab ou t ev ery m on th on hi m .

. . . A: Th e fi rs t two m on th s tha t h e d idn’t re po rt, I n ev er h eardfro m hi m th os e two m on th s. Th enI wen t o utto fin d h im . . . .

. . . Q. . . . Didy ougo do li ke itsays in Sect io n 2 4 o f th e Co m m un ity Supe rv is io n p artof t he Co de ? Didy ougo ou t the re an d l oo k a t h im an d t el l h im we ne edto res ch edul e y ou --- A. Notto hi s jo b. I d idgo by his ho us e, bu t ap pa ren tl y he was wo rk in g, an d th e h om e v is it s I d id , he was no t av ai labl e fo r th os e two m on th s.

. . . Q. Didy ougo m or e th anon ce t o h is ho us e? . . . Appel le e’ s B ri ef P age 24 o f 34A. I wenteach m on th .

Q. I m eanforon e m on th . Yousai d youwentby his ho us e whe n youkn ew he was a t wo rk ? A. I wentby his ho us e. I le ft acardon th e d oo r. RR V 1 P 12 L 5 - P 1 3 L 2 , V 1 P 1 4 L 2 4 - P 15 L 1, V 1 P 1 8 L 1 0 - 1 2, V 1 P 34 L 21 - P 35 L 2, V 1 P 3 5 L 1 5 - 2 0. The re i s s om e ev id en ce tha t p ro ba ti on off ic er Ranc e Hoc ka da y

di d a tt em

pt to co nt act , anddi d c on ta ct , Rop er athi s h om e ata ti m e aft er the m on th s h e fai le d to rep ort. If t ha t was all th e st atut e requi redth enRo pe r fai le d t o p ro ve th e d efen se . 2.C . ANY LACK-OF-DUE-DILIGENCE DE FENSE IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR THE FAILURE TO PAY ALLEGA TIONS. If the Co urt wer e to fin d t ha t the du e d il ig en ce s ta tu te ap pl ie s as Ro pe r arg ue s, i t d oe s n otap pl y

to th e fai lure t o p ay

all eg at io ns . The d efen se inSect io n 24 of Art ic le 42 .12 of the Texa s C od e o f Cri m in al Pro cedur e d oe s n otap pl y to rev oc at io ns ba se d o n a ll eg at io ns ot he r th anfai lu re t o re po rt a ndfai lu re t o re m ai n withi n asp eci fie d p la ce. Gar ci a v . Stat e , 38 7 S .W .3d20 , 26 (Tex . Cri m . App . 20 12 ). Even if the de fen da ntpro ve d t he du e d il ig en ce af firm at iv e d efen se , th e tr ia l co urt’s o rd er ad

jud ic at in g g ui ltm ay

st il l b e aff

irmed if itco ul d h av e fo un d b y

a Appel le e’ s B ri ef P age 25 o f 34pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce tha t Ro pe r vi ol at edth e te rm s o f hi s d eferred

ad jud ic at io n b y

fai li ng to pa y

as h e was ord eredan d a s i s ar gu edbe lo w. See id .

Appel le e’ s B ri ef P age 26 o f 34Is su e 3 : The T ri al Cour t di d no t ab us e it s di sc reti on by fin di ng tha t Rop er fa il ed to pa y c ou rt-o rder ed fi nes an d/ or tha t he w as ab le to p ay co urt c os ts an d fee s. 3.A. THE STAT E DOES NO T HAVE THE BURDEN T O SHOW A DEFENDANT ’S ABILITY T O PAY FINES AND RESTITUTION. Sect io n 2 1( c) o f Arti cl e 4 2.1 2 o f th e Tex as Co de of C riminal Pro cedur e requi res th e St at e to pro ve th atth e d efen da ntwas abl e to pa y an d d idno t p ay

as or de redby the co urt i n o rd er t o re vo ke a pr ob at io n b as edon fai lu re t o p ay at to rn ey ’s fees , comm

un ity supe rv is io n fe es an d c ou rt c os ts . Thi s re qu ire m en t do es no t ap pl y

to fin es an d re st itut io n. Gip so n v . Stat e , 42 8 S .W .3d10 7, 1 08 -0 9 (Tex . Cri m . App . 20 14 ). Fin es were i nc lu de d i n the am ountRo pe r fai le d t o p ay . CR 4 0 - 4 1. Whe n R op er was pl acedon de ferr edad jud ic at io n h e was ass es se d afin e o f $1 50 0. CR18 - 19 . He was o rd eredto pa y th atfin e as a co nd it io n o f hi s p ro ba ti on . CR 2 7 - 3 0. Th e $ 32 .00 pe r m on th , whi chRo pe r was ord eredto pa y , in cl ud edth e fin e. CR 2 8. Ro pe r fai le d t o p ay th e $ 32 .00 pe r m on th as o rd ered . RR V 1 P 1 0 L 1 - 14 . As itwas i nc lu de d i n the $3 2.0 0 p er m on th , Rop er n eces sa ril y fai le d t o p ay th e $ 15 00 fin e as ord ered . The St at e was no t re qu ire d t o p ro ve Ro pe r’s ab il ity to pa y th e co urt-o rd eredfin e. See id . Reg ard le ss of h is ab il ity , th e Tria l Co urt co ul d ha ve fou ndth atRo pe r fai le d t o p ay th e fi ne as o rd eredan d a dju di cat edhi s Appel le e’ s B ri ef P age 27 o f 34de ferr edad

jud ic at io n o n tha t g ro un d.

3.B . ROPER HAD THE ABILITY T O PAY. Ina rev oc at io n o f co m

m un ity supe rv is io n fo r fai lu re t o p ay co urt-o rd ered at to rn ey fees , comm

un ity supe rv is io n fe es , or c ourt c os ts , th e st at e m us t p ro ve by a pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce tha t the de fen da ntwas abl e to pa y an d d idno t s o pa y . Tex. Co de Cri m . Pro c. art . 42 .12 sec 21 (c). Th e ev id en ce b efo re the tri al co urt is th atat v ari ou s t im es Ro pe r worke d fo r Pri efert M anuf actur in g, Pi lg rim’ s Pr id e an d B ig Tex Tra il ers . RR V 1 P 1 9 L 3 - 12 ; P 2 8 L 1 6 - 1 8. He h ada cri m in al hi st ory whenhe work edat P il gr im ’s. RR V 1 P 2 3 L 2 1 - 2 4. He qui t the job at B ig Tex . RR V 1 P 1 9 L 6 . Tho ug h h e sa idhe th ou gh t h e h ada job ready at P il gr im ’s be fo re h e qui t Bi g Tex , he h adno t ev enfil le d o utanap pl ic at io n at Pi lg rim’ s. RR V 1 P 2 3 L 1 1 - 1 5. Of Ho ck ad ay ’s sex off en de r cas e lo ad , abo utni ne ty-fiv e pe rcen t o f th em

are em pl oyed. RR

V 1 P 1 6 L 2 2 - 2 5. Ro pe r li ve d a t a f rie nd ’s ap art m en t; th e fri en d p ai d fo r Ro pe r’s fo odan d d idno t ch arg e h im ren t. RR V 1 P 26 L 5 - 7 . The l as t h om e v is itHock ad ay m ad e o n R op er, Ho ck ad ay fou ndhi m as le ep at 2 :3 0 i n t he aft ern oo n. RRV 1 P 1 9 L 1 3 - 1 5. InHock ad ay ’s op in io n, Ro pe r was no t re al ly loo ki ng fora job . RR V 1 P 1 9 L 1 7 - 1 9. Ba se d o n t he se fact s, the Trial Co urt co ul d h av e fo un d t ha t Ro pe r ha d t he ab il ity to workan d t o Appel le e’ s B ri ef P age 28 o f 34pa y

bu t d idno t m ak e a b on a fi de effo rt t o d o s o. Se e Li vel y v. Sta te , 33 8 S .W .3d 14 0, 1 46 (Tex . App .—Tex ark an a 2 01 1, n o p et .)(aff irming tri al co urt’s re vo cat io n on all eg at io ns of f

ai lu re t o p ay

fin es , res ti tu ti onan d c ourt c os ts when th e tr ia l co urt co ul d h av e fo un d t ha t Li ve ly fail edto m ak e a b on a fi de effo rt t o a cqui re res ou rces to pay

or f in d e m pl oym en t). In Li vel y v. Sta te , th e Co urt co ns id eredwhet he r th e d efen da nt ’s fai lu re t o pa y res ti tu ti on an d c ou rt- or de redfin es was wi ll fu l. 3 38 S.W .3d14 0, 1 45 -4 6 (ap pl y in g Bea rden v. Geor gi a , 46 1 U.S. 6 60 (19 83 ), ev enth ou gh no t s pe ci fic al ly in cl ud edas p artof t he Sta te ’s bu rd enof p ro of un de r Arti cl e 4 2.1 2 s ect io n 2 1( c) o f th e Tex as Co de of C riminal Pro cedur e an d h ol di ng th atth e tr ia l co urt m us t co ns id er i f th e p ro ba ti on er wi ll fu ll y refu se d t o p ay

or f ai le d t o m ak e su ffi ci en t effo rts to ob ta in res ou rces to pay fin es an d re st itut io n) . The Co urt fo un d tha t the tri al co urt co ul d h av e reject edth e d efen da nt ’s tes ti m on y th athe di d n otha ve th e ab il ity to pa y , esp eci al ly in l ig htof h is ab il ity to pay a larg e su m

pre vi ou sl y

an d th athe li ve d i n l ow- in co m e h ou si ng . Id . at 1 46 . The tria l co urt co ul d h av e fo un d th atth e d efen dantfai le d t o m ak e rea l ef fo rts to acqui re the res ou rces to pa y be cau se he di d n otsee k e m pl oym en t i n h is fie ldof e xp eri en ce o r el se whe re. Id . InRo pe r’s cas e, th e Tria l Co urt co ul d h av e d is be li ev edRo pe r’s te st im on y th athe co ul d n otfin d e m pl oym en t. He h adbe enem pl oyed atsev eral pl aces . He Appel le e’ s B ri ef P age 29 o f 34qu ithi s l at es t jo b. Whi le he tes ti fie d t ha t h e qui t Bi g Tex be cau se he th ou gh t h e

was go in g b ackto workat P il gr im ’s, he h adno t ev enpu t i n a n app li cat io n a t Pi lg rim’ s. He d idno t h av e to pa y forren t o r fo odan d t he las t t im e Hoc ka da y m ad e a h om e v is it , itap pe aredRo pe r was asl eep at 2 :3 0 i n t he aft ern oo n. Th e Tria l Co urt co ul d h av e fo un d t ha t Ro pe r ha d t he ab il ity to pa y bu t fa il edto see k em pl oym en t o r m ak e a b on a fi de effo rt t o a cqui re re so ur ces to pa y .

Appel le e’ s B ri ef P age 30 o f 34CONCLUSION

The Trial Co urt d idno t err in de nyin g R op er’s m ot io n t o t ran sf er the he ari ng of t he Sta te ’s Mo ti onto Adju di cat e. By st atut e, th e 7 6 th an d 2 76 th Ju di ci al Dis tri ct s h av e co nc urren t juris di ct io n a ndcanhe ar ea chot he r’s cas es . Ro pe r fai le d t o re po rt t o t he pro ba ti on de pa rtment f orth e m on th s o f Mar ch , Apr il an d S ep te m

be r of 20 13 . The Du e-Di li ge nc e Defen se ap pl ie s t o the Sta te ’s effo rts inservi ng th e cap ia s i ss ue d fo r th os e v io la ti on s. Itdo es no t re qu ire th e pr ob at io n d ep art m en t t o m ak e a h om e v is iton th e p ro ba ti on er o n the m on th he do es no t re po rt. Nev erthe le ss , th e p ro ba ti on de pa rtment d idm ak e h om e v is it s t o Ro pe r’s res id en ce thr ou gh ou t the term of p ro ba ti on , in cl ud in g o n m on th s af te r th e m on th s R op er fa il edto rep ort. Partof wh atRo pe r fai le d t o p ay as aco nd it io n o f hi s p ro ba ti on was fi ne s. The Sta te do es no t h av e to pro ve Ro pe r’s ab il ity to pa y fin es as i t d oe s co urt co st s, pr ob at io n fe es an d a tt orne y ’s fees . Sti ll , th e Tria l Co urt co ul d h av e fo un d t ha t Ro pe r ha d t he ab il ity

to pay an d d idno t ap pe ar t o b e m ak in g b on a fi de effo rts to ob ta in em pl oym en t o r ot he rwis e acqui re the pro ceed s i n o rd er t o p ay . The Trial Co urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n a dju di cat in g t he gu il t o f Ant ho ny Rop er. Bas edon th e ev id en ce b efo re i t, i t co ul d h av e fo un d b y a pr ep on de ran ce o f th e ev id en ce tha t An th on y Ro pe r vi ol at edon e o r m or e o f th e Appel le e’ s B ri ef P age 31 o f 34co nd it io ns of h is pro ba ti on . The Tri al Co urt’s jud gm en t s ho ul d b e aff irmed.

Appel le e’ s B ri ef P age 32 o f 34PRAYER

The Sta te , th eref

or e, pr ay s tha t thi s C ou rt a ffi rm th e tr ia l co urt’s jud gm en t. Res pe ct fu ll y

subm it te d, The Sta te of Tex as Titus Co un ty D is tri ctAtt orne y P.O. Box 24 9 Mt . Ple as an t, TX 75 45 6 Ph on e: (90 3) 57 7- 67 26 Fax : (9 03 ) 57 7- 67 29 By : /s / Dav idCo ll ey Dav idCo ll ey St at e BarNo. 2 40 07 02 7 Ass is tantDis tri ctAtt orne y

CERTI FICATE OF COMPLI ANCE Purs uantto Ru le 9.4 (i) (3 ) of th e Tex as Ru le s o f App el la te Pro cedur e, I he reb y cert ify tha t, ac co rd in g t o t he co m pu te r pr og ram

wordco un t, Ap pe ll ee’s Bri ef co nt ai ns 5,7 87 word s. Th e b rie f is writ te n i n 1 4- po in t Ti m es New Ro m an . /s / Dav idCo ll ey Dav idCo ll ey

Appel le e’ s B ri ef P age 33 o f 34CERTI FICATE OF SERVI CE

Thi s i s t o c ert ify tha t o n Sep te m be r 14 , 20 15 , a tru e an d c orrectco py of th e ab ov e an d fo reg oi ng do cu m en t was serve d o n a ll co un se l o f rec or d a s in di cat edbe lo w: Mac Co bb Att orne y -at -Law P.O. Box 11 34 Mt . Ple as an t, Tex as 75 45 6 Em ai l: m acco bb la w@yaho o.c om VIA EMAI L /s / Dav idCo ll ey Dav idCo ll ey

Appel le e’ s B ri ef P age 34 o f 34