i i i i i i



### MEMORANDUM OPI NIO N No
. 04 -0 8- 00 31 5- CR M o n te z THOMAS , Ap pe lla nt
v . The STA TE of

Te xas, Appellee F ro m th e 29 0th

Judic ia l D ist

ri c t Co ur t, B e xar County , T e xas Trial Court No. 2007-CR-9142W Honora ble Sharon Mac Rae, Judge Pre siding Opinion by : Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Deliver ed and F iled: Marc h 11, 2009 AFF I RMED Montez Thomas was place d on defe rre d adjudication communit y supervision for a

period of five y ear s after

pleadingno contest to burg lary of a ha bitation pursuant to a plea ba rg ain with the State. Two months late r, the State filed a motion to revoke Thomas’s c ommunity supervision and adjudicate him guilty , alleg ing T homas violated his c ommunity supervision. After

an evide ntiary he ari ng , th e tr ia l c ourt

fo un d th e a lle g a tio ns in t he mot ion

“ tr ue ,” revo ke d T ho ma s’ s c omm un ity
su pe rv isi on , a

nd a dju dic a te d h im guil ty

of burg lary of a ha bit a tio n. Th e c ourt se nte nc e d Tho ma s to04
- 08
- 00 31 5- CR

1 ... Al t houg h T homas r ecogn i zes t he proper s t andar d of r evi ew i s abus e of di s cr et i on, he ar gu es t he evi dence he vi o l at ed hi s co m m uni t y s up ervi si o n i s “f a c tua lly i nsuf

f i ci ent
. ” T ho m as ur ges us t o “ revi ew t he t ri al evi d ence i n a neut ral l i ght ” and ap p l y th e factual s uf f i ci ency st and ards s et f

o rt h i n W

a tso n v . S ta te , 20 4 S.W
. 3 d 40 4 , 41 4
- 1 5 (T ex. Cr i m. App. 2 0 0 6 )
. Th e f a c t u a l s u f

f i c i e n c y r e v i e w a p p l i c a b l e t o f i n d i n g s o f g u i l t h a s n o a p p l i c a t i o n i n a r e v i ew of w h e the r t h e tria l c o u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in re v o k ing c o m m u n ity su p e rv isio n . See , e . g. , D a v ila v . S ta te , 173 S. W
. 3d 1 9 5 , 1 9 8 (T e x . A p p .— C o rp u s C h risti 2 0 0 5 , no p e t.); P ie rc e v . S ta te , 113 S. W
. 3d 431, 436 ( T ex . App.

— T ex ar k an a 2003, p e t. re f’ d ); A llb rig h t v. S ta te , 13 S.W
. 3 d 81 7 , 81 8 (T ex. A p p . — Fo rt W o rt h 20 0 0 , pe t
. ref ’ d ).

- 2- ten y ear s incar cer ation. Thomas appe als the judg ment, arguing the trial court a bused its discretion beca use the e vidence was insuffic ient to show he violated a ny of the c onditions. Th e tr ial court

wa s a uth or ize d to re vo ke Th oma s’ s c omm un ity su pe rv isi on and a dju dic a te his g uil t on

the or ig ina l c ha

rg e on pr oo f T ho ma s v iol a te d a ny c on dit ion

of his c omm

un ity supervision. SeeT EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . a rt . 4 2. 12 §5 (b ) ( Ve rn on

Sup p. 20 08 ). Th e State bore the burden to pr ove by a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e that Thomas violated a t least one of the conditions. See Ri c k

e ls v . S tate , 202 S.W .3d 759, 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). We review the trial court’s de cision t o p ro ce ed with an adjudication of guilt for abuse of discretion. SeeT EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . art. 42.12 § 5 ( b ) (Ve rnon Supp. 2008) (de termination to proce ed with adjudication of g uilt on original c harg e is revie wable in same manner as orde r re voking c ommunity supervision); Ri c k e ls , 202 S.W .3d at 763 (orde r re voking c ommunity supervision revie wed f or abuse of discretion). 1 Th e tr ia l c ourt do e s n ot a

bu se its disc ret io n if

the or de r r e vo kin g c omm un ity supervision is “ ‘supported by a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e; in othe r words, that g reater we ight of the c redible e vidence which would cr eate a re as o nable be lief that the de fenda nt has violated a condition of his probation.’” Ri c k e ls , 2 0 2 S
. W
. 3 d

at 7 6 3 -7 6 4 (q u o t i n g Sc am ar do v . S tate , 517 S.W. 2d 29 3, 29 8 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 74 )) . In o ur re vie w, we vie w the e vid e nc e in t he lig ht m os t favor able to the trial court’ s ruling, se e Car do na v . S tate , 665 S.W .2d 492 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984), and “de fer

not only to [ the] trial judge’ s resolut i o n o f d i s p uted fa cts, but also to his right to dra w04
- 08
- 00 31 5- CR

- 3- rea sonable infere nces from t h o s e f acts.” Can tu v . S

tate , 253 S.W .3d 273, 282 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). The State a lleg ed Thomas violated c ondition numbe r o n e of his community supervision, which re quired he not commit any offe nse, by

committing t he off

ense of “Te rror istic Threats.” A person c ommits the offe nse of ter roristic threat if he threatens to c ommit a crime of violence to any person with the intent of pla cing any person in fear of imminent serious bodily

injury . T EX . P EN AL C O DE ANN . § 2 2
. 0 7 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( V e r n o n Su p p . 2 0 0 8 )
. T h e g r a v a me n o f th e o f f e n s e is th e “ thr e a t of violence, ma de with the intent to place the victim in fear of imminent serious b odily injury .” W ill iam s v . S

tate , 194 S.W .3d 568, 574 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 2006), aff’d , 252 S.W .3d 353 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). “It is not necessar y for the vic tim to actually be plac ed in fe ar of imm ine nt s e ri ou s b od ily

inj ur y or fo r the a c c us e d to have the c a pa bil ity or the int e nti on

to a c tua lly
car ry out the threat.” Id. at 574-75. Th e State pr e se nte d the te sti mony of Mr s. Ta ny e ll Wa ite rs in s up po rt

of the a lle g a tio n. Mr s. Wai te rs te sti fi e d a

bo ut h e r f

amil y ’s his tor

y wi th Th oma s, e xpla ini ngTh oma s b e lie ve d M rs . Waiters’s husband ha d cause d one of Thoma s’s frie nds to be fire d. Thomas and his fr iends had reta liated ag ainst her f

amily during the y ear

prec edingthe hea

ring by shooting at her house on eig hteen se parate occ asions and by assaulting her son, rende ring him unc onscious. I n response , she ha s h a d to mov e tw o ti me s. On Janu ary 8, 20 08 , Mr s. Wai te rs ’s so n c a lle d h e r f ro m sc ho ol a

nd tol d her Thoma s and a numbe r of his fr iends wer e s t an d ing outside his cla ssroom. Mrs. Waiters went to t he hig h s c ho ol t o w ith dr aw h e r s on fr om the sc ho ol b e c a

us e sh e fe are d f

or his sa fe ty . Wh ile Mr s. Waiters and her

son were waiting in the office , Thomas was the re star ing at her. S h e t es tified an office r told her she could g o to the main office if she was uncomforta ble. As she and he r son walke d04
- 08
- 00 31 5- CR

- 4- int o th e ha ll tow ard the ma in of fi c e , Th oma s fo llo we d the m and sa id, “ B ** c h, I ’m g oin g to f

ini sh off what my

brothers didn’t do.” “Your whole fa

mily is dead.” T h o m as d id not present any evidenc e. Thomas contends the State’s evidenc e wa s insuff ic ient beca

use “[n]o ot her w itnesses prese nt overhe ard w hat words we re e x chang ed betwe en Ms. Waiters and Mr. T homas” a nd beca use “[t] he trial court f

ailed to consider Waiter’s [ sic] motivation for her t estimony .” Thomas cross-examined Mrs. Waiters about her

ability to hear in the school hallway , and the f act that nobod y el se pre sent hear d what wor ds Thomas said to her. He a lso elic i t ed t es t i m ony that there was a

g reat deal of animosity betwee n Waiters’s family and Thomas’s, and that Thomas had pr eviously acc used her

of shooting him in the leg
. The trial court was the s ole j udg e of the cre dibilit y of Waiters’s testimony and the we ight to be g iven it. Se e Tay lor v . S tate , 604 S
. W .2d 175, 179 (Tex. Crim. App. [ Panel Op .] 19 80 ); Pl un k

v . S tate , No. 05-07-01737- CR, 2009 WL 332254 (Tex. App.—Dallas, F eb. 12, 2009, no pet. h.). The court did not abuse its di s cr et i o n by choosing to believe Mrs. Waiters’ s testimony . Thomas has failed t o show the trial cour t abused its discretion in finding the alleg ation Th oma s v iol a te d th e fi rs t c on dit ion of his com mu nit

y su pe rv isi on to b e tr ue . B e c a us e a sin g le violation of the terms of c ommunity supervision will support a re vocation orde r, we aff irm the trial court’s judg ment. Se e O’

Ne al v . S tate , 623 S.W .2d 660, 661 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981).

Steven C. Hilbig , J ustice

Do No t Pu

bli sh