i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 9- 00 02 1- CR Roderick LIGHTEARD , Appellant
v . The STA TE of

Te xas, Appellee Fr om the 399th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2005-CR-1712 Honora ble J uanita A. Va squez-Gar dner, Judge Presiding Opinion by : Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Sitt ing: Kar en Ang elini, J ustice

Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Deliver ed and F iled: May 19, 2010 AFF I RMED Roderick L ighte ard a

ppeals fr om a judg ment of convic tion for p o s s ession of a c ontrolled substance w ith intent to deliver. L ighte ard entere d a plea of guilty to the char g e and w as plac ed on de fe rr e d a dju dic a tio n f

or te n y e ars . Sub se qu e ntl y , the State mov e d to a dju dic a te g uil t, a lle g ingin pa rt that L ig hte ard

vio late d th e c on dit ion s of his c omm un ity su pe rv isi on by c omm itt ingthe of

fe ns e of murder . After

a hea ring , the trial court re voked L ighte ard’ s community supervision, enter ed an adjudication of guilt, and sentence d him to forty -five year s i n p ri s o n . In his sole point of error ,04

- 09

- 00 02 1- CR

- 2- L ighte ard c ontends the trial cour t abused its discre t i on by revokinghis community supervision beca use there is no evidence to support the trial cour t’s finding he committed a c riminal offe nse. We a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt
. B ACKG ROUND At the hear ing on the motion to adjudicate guilt, the State reque sted the trial co u rt t o take jud ic ia l no tic e of

the pr ior mur de r t ri a l in wh ic h L ig hte ard

wa s f ound g uil ty by a jur y : State: We’re g oing to ask t he judge to take notice. She’s the one that [si c]

presided over the murder conviction and just take notice that the jury ha s c onvic te d h im o f that Cond iti on Numbe r 1 and the re fo re fi nd

him g uilty and adjudicate him on this m otion to adjudicate. Co u rt: O k ay , d id

y o uh av e an y

th in g in th a t r e g ar d

[d e f e n s e c o un s e l] ? Def ense: No, Your H onor. Court: All rig ht. Mr. L ighte ard, I am going to find that y ou violated Conditi on Number 1, f

ind that there is sufficient evidenc e to support and g rant the State’ s motion. I will g rant the motion. Find that y ou v io late d Co n d it io n N u mb e r 1 an d f in d y o u g u il ty o f th e o f

fense of possession of a c ontrolled subs t an ce in penalty g roup one w ith the int e nt t o d e liv e r 4 to 2 00 g ra ms. S TA N D A R D O F REVIEW We reviewa trial c ourt’s dec ision to revoke community supervision under a

n abuse of discretion standa

rd. Ri c k e ls v . S tate , 202 S.W .3d 75 9 , 7 6 3 (T ex . Crim. App. 2006). An abuse of discretion occ urs when the trial court ba ses its decision on insufficient e vidence
. Id. at 763-64. The State must prove its alleg ations by a pre pondera

nce of evidenc e. Id. I n d ec i d ing whether the decision was based on sufficie nt evidenc e, we revie w t he evide nce in the lig ht most favorable to the trial court’ s ruling. Car

do na v . S tate , 665 S.W .2d 492, 493 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984).04

- 09

- 00 02 1- CR

- 3- D I S CUS S I ON L ighte ard a sserts the evide nce is insuffic ient to support the t rial court’s decision t o revoke his de fe rr e d a dju dic a tio n b e c a us e the c ourt

ne ve r p ro pe rl y

too k ju dic ia l n otic e of

any fa c ts. L ighte ard f

urther c ontends the only

fac t the State reque sted the cour t to notice was a

non-final conviction, which c annot be the ba sis of a re vocation. Initially , we note that when the same trial c ourt preside s over both the r evocation hearingand the trial of the unde rlying of fense that is the basis of the motion to revoke , the trial court may take judicial notice of the evidenc e pre sented at the trial. Ak ba r v . S tate , 1 90 S.W .3d 119, 1 2 3 ( T e x. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.). A de fenda nt must t i m el y

reque st an opportunity

to be hear d on the proprie ty

of takingjudicial notice and the tenor of the matter notice d. T EX . R. E V ID . 201(e) . The fa ilure t o t i m el y m ak e such request wa ives any err or as to the pr opriety of taking judicial notice. Kub os h v . S tate , 241 S.W .3d 60, 66-67 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). L ighte ard a rgues he is not attackingthe propriety of takingjudicial notice, but claims the c ourt only judicially noticed his c onvic tio n f

or the of fe ns e of mur de r a nd no t th e e vid e nc e a dd

uc e d at hi s e arl ie r t

ri a l. A trial court may take judicial notice when reque sted by a par ty or su a s po nte . T EX . R. E V ID . 20 1( c ); J ac ob s v . S tate , 294 S.W .3d 192, 196 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2009, pet. re f’d) . The c ourt is not required to a

nnounce it is taking judicial notice. Kub os h , 2 41 S.W. 3d a t 65 -6 6; Jacobs , 294 S.W .3 d at 1 9 6
. We may infer the trial court took judicial notice f rom its actions. Kub os h , 241 S.W .3d at 66

. Th e State ’s mot ion

to ente r an a dju dic a tio n of guil t a lle g e d L ig hte ard “ c omm itt e d th e of

fe ns e of murder ” on or a

bout Febr uary 6, 2007. The indictment in the murder case date a lleg ed the murde r04

- 09

- 00 02 1- CR

1 ... Li gh t ear d’ s mur der convi ct i on was r ece nt l y af f i r med by t hi s cour t
. See Ligh t e a rd v . S ta te , N o. 04- 09- 00022- C R , 20 1 0 W L— (T ex. A p p . — Sa n A nt o ni o M ay 1 2 , 20 1 0 , no p et
. h. ) ( m em . op . , not d esi gnat ed f o r pub l i cat i o n). T he re c o rd fro m the trial w a s b e fo re this c o u rt a n d w e m a y tak e ju d ic ia l no tice o f i t. Jac obs , 294 S. W
. 3d a t 196- 197.

2 ... B eca us e we r ej ect Li gh t ear d’ s ar gu ment hi s rev ocat i on was b as ed on t he f act of hi s conv i ct i on r at her t han t he evi dence he comm i t t ed t he of f ens e of mur der, we nee d not addres s hi s s econd ar gu ment t hat t he t r i al cour t abus ed its d isc re tio n b e c a u se the m u rd e r c o n v ic tio n w a s n o t f ina l.

- 4- occur red F ebrua

ry 6, 2007. 1 Although the State reque sted the t rial j udg e to take judicial notice of the conviction, the tria l court infer entially indicated it took notice of the evidenc e adduc ed at tria l by finding “suff

icient evidenc e to support and g rant the State’ s motion.” See id. L ightear d was offe red a n opportunity

to be hea rd on the propr iety

of takingjudicial notice and the “teno r o f the matter notice d” but made no obje ction to either. I t should have be en appa rent to L ighte ard the trial court took judicia l notice of the evidenc e, as opposed to the conviction, when the court a nnounced that the evidenc e supported the State’s motion. Yet L ighte ard did not objec t or seek to be hea rd on the iss ue . We ov e rr

ule L ig hte ard ’s so le po int of e rr or and a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ourt
. 2

Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice
DO NO T PU B L I SH