Affirmed as Modified and Opinion filed July 26, 2016.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-15-00272-CR

DARIUS HOUSTON-RANDLE, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 248th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1418365

O P I N I O N

Appellant Darius Houston-Randle pled guilty to aggravated robbery, and the 

trial court granted deferred adjudication community supervision. The State filed a 

motion to adjudicate guilt alleging twelve probation violations. After the State 

abandoned several allegations, appellant pled not true to the remainder. The trial 

court found two allegations true: (1) appellant committed an offense against the 

State of Texas; and (2) appellant failed to provide medical and mental health 
2

records to his community supervision officer. In two issues, appellant contends the 

trial court abused its discretion by finding each of these allegations true.

We affirm as modified1because the trial court did not abuse its discretion by 

finding the first allegation true.

I. BACKGROUND

During the revocation hearing, Andrew Brouchet testified that he was sitting 

in his truck when one man armed with a gun opened the passenger side door while 

appellant opened the driver side door. Appellant said, “Give me the money,” and 

rifled through Brouchet’s pockets to take his wallet and cell phone. The robbers 

fled on foot, and Brouchet chased them. The robbers escaped, but later Brouchet 

identified appellant in a photo array. Brouchet identified appellant at trial.

Brouchet testified further that he was “pissed off” and “upset” at the time of 

the robbery, but he “wasn’t scared.” When asked if he was afraid, Brouchet 

answered, “No. I wasn’t afraid.” He said he was “mad.” When asked why he let 

appellant take the wallet and cell phone, Brouchet answered, “Well, I really didn’t 

want to get shot.”

The trial court found true the State’s allegation that appellant violated a term 

of probation as follows: 

Committing an offense against the State of Texas, to-wit . . . the 

Defendant, did then and there unlawfully while in the course of 

committing theft of property owned by ANDREW BROUCHET, and 

[with] the intent to obtain and maintain control of the property, 

INTENTIONALLY AND KNOWINGLY threaten and place 

ANDREW BROUCHET in fear of imminent bodily injury and death, 

and the Defendant did then a[n]d there use and exhibit a deadly 

weapon, namely, A FIREARM.

 

1 As explained below, we modify the trial court’s judgment to reflect that appellant did 

not plead true to the motion to adjudicate.
3

The trial court adjudicated appellant’s guilt and sentenced him to fifteen 

years’ confinement.

II. COMMITTING AN OFFENSE AGAINST THE STATE OF TEXAS

Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion by revoking 

probation because the State failed to prove that appellant threatened or placed 

Brouchet in fear of imminent bodily injury or death, as the State alleged and as 

required by the aggravated robbery statute. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 29.02, 

29.03. The State contends the trial court did not abuse its discretion because, 

among other reasons, the evidence is legally sufficient to prove the place-in-fear 

element of aggravated robbery. We agree with the State.

A. Standard of Review and Revocation Principles

We review a trial court’s decision to revoke deferred adjudication probation, 

i.e., community supervision, for an abuse of discretion. See Leonard v. State, 385 

S.W.3d 570, 576 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). “[T]he trial court has discretion to 

revoke community supervision when a preponderance of the evidence supports the 

violation of a condition of [the defendant’s] community supervision.” Id. Under 

the preponderance standard, the State must prove that the greater weight of the 

credible evidence would create a reasonable belief that the defendant has violated a 

condition of probation. Hacker v. State, 389 S.W.3d 860, 865 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2013).

This standard “has been described as a review for whether there is ‘more 

than a scintilla’ of evidence.” Id. (quoting Jelinek v. Casas, 328 S.W.3d 526, 532 

(Tex. 2010)). The standard is not met when “the evidence offered to prove a vital 

fact is so weak as to do no more than create a mere surmise or suspicion of its 

existence or when the finder of fact must guess whether a vital fact exists.” Id.
4

(footnote and quotations omitted). The trial court is the sole judge of the 

credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to the testimony. Id.

B. Sufficient Evidence of the Placed-In-Fear Element

Appellant contends there is no evidence that Brouchet was placed in fear of 

imminent bodily injury or death because Brouchet testified that he was not afraid

or scared. Citing Howard v. State, 333 S.W.3d 137, 140 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011), 

appellant contends there must be evidence that “someone actually is placed in 

fear.” But the Howard court explained that implicit threats are sufficient to place a 

victim in fear under the robbery statute “[s]o long as the defendant’s actions are ‘of 

such nature as in reason and common experience is likely to induce a person to part 

with his property against his will.’” Id. at 138 (quoting Cranford v. State, 377 

S.W.2d 957, 958 (Tex. Crim. App. 1964)); see also Etzler v. State, 158 S.W.2d 

495, 496 (Tex. Crim. App. 1941) (“[I]f under the circumstances and conditions 

surrounding the transaction [the victim] has a reasonable belief he may suffer 

injury unless he does not comply with the robber’s request, the ‘fear’ required by 

the law is present.” (quotation omitted)).

The place-in-fear element of robbery does not require the victim to be 

“hysterical” or frightened “to the extent of losing one’s senses or control.” Etzler, 

158 S.W.2d at 496 (quotation omitted). And the requisite fear must arise from the 

conduct of the defendant, “‘rather than the mere temperamental timidity of the 

victim.’” Devine v. State, 786 S.W.2d 268, 271 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989) (quoting 

Cranford v. State, 377 S.W.2d 957, 959 (Tex. Crim. App. 1964)) (holding that the 

evidence was insufficient to prove the place-in-fear element even though the victim 

testified that he was “afraid and believed he would be killed if he did not give 

appellant the money”).
5

Appellant cites no authority holding that the evidence is or becomes legally 

insufficient when the victim testifies he or she was not scared or afraid. And 

several courts have held contrary to his argument. See Etzler, 158 S.W.2d at 496 

(sufficient evidence even though the victim testified that he was “not scared” and 

“thought he was not in danger”; this testimony was inconsistent with the victim’s 

conduct of giving his money and automobile to the defendant, who was armed with 

a gun); Hernandez v. State, 656 S.W.2d 630, 631 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1983, 

no pet.) (“Even if the complainant had unequivocally stated that he was never in 

fear, the requisite fear could be found to exist based on his conduct of allowing the 

appellant to take his wallet.”).

Brouchet testified that one of the robbers was carrying a gun, and appellant 

demanded Brouchet’s money. Despite Brouchet’s temperamental fortitude, he

parted with his property because he “really didn’t want to get shot.” We hold that

appellant and his accomplice’s conduct was of such a nature as to induce Brouchet

to part with his property against his will, and Brouchet had a reasonable belief that 

he could suffer injury if he did not comply with the robbers’ request. This 

evidence is more than a scintilla of evidence supporting the place-in-fear element

of aggravated robbery. See Etzler, 158 S.W.2d at 496; Hernandez, 656 S.W.2d at 

631.

Appellant’s first issue is overruled. 

III. FAILING TO PROVIDE MENTAL HEALTH AND MEDICAL RECORDS

Having concluded that the trial court did not err by revoking appellant’s

probation based on the first of the State’s allegations, we do not reach appellant’s 

second issue concerning his failure to provide medical and mental health records. 

See Norton v. State, 434 S.W.3d 767, 773 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, 

no pet.) (citing Smith v. State, 286 S.W.3d 333, 342 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009)) (“An 
6

order revoking community supervision may be upheld based on the violation of a 

single condition of community supervision.”); see also Tex. R. App. P. 47.1.

IV. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT

Appellant notes that the trial court’s judgment erroneously reflects that he 

pled true to the motion to adjudicate. He is correct. The reporter’s record indicates 

he pled not true.

“When a court of appeals has the necessary data and evidence before it for 

reformation, an erroneous judgment may be reformed on appeal.” Storr v. State, 

126 S.W.3d 647, 654–55 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, pet. ref’d) 

(modifying the trial court’s judgment to reflect that the defendant pled not guilty 

when the judgment reflected that he pled guilty). “[A]n appellate court has 

authority to reform a judgment when the matter has been called to its attention by 

any source.” Joseph v. State, 3 S.W.3d 627, 643 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 

1999, no pet.) (citing French v. State, 830 S.W.2d 607, 609 (Tex. Crim. App. 

1992) (holding that an appellate court may reform a judgment to include an 

affirmative finding “to make the record speak the truth” even though the party did 

not raise the issue in the trial court)).

Accordingly, we modify the trial court’s judgment to reflect that appellant 

pled not true to the motion to adjudicate. See Ambriz v. State, No. 14-10-00952-

CR, 2011 WL 3667870, at *4 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 23, 2011, no 

pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (modifying trial court’s judgment, 

which erroneously stated that the defendant pled not true to the motion to 

adjudicate, to reflect that the defendant pled not true to only one allegation and 

pled true to other allegations).
7

V. CONCLUSION

The trial court did not err by revoking appellant’s community supervision 

and adjudicating guilt. But the judgment erroneously reflects that appellant pled 

true to the State’s motion to adjudicate. Thus, we modify the judgment by adding 

the word “not” before the word “true” under the heading “Plea to the Motion to 

Adjudicate,” and we affirm the trial court’s judgment as modified.

/s/ Sharon McCally

Justice

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, McCally, and Busby.

Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).