NO. 07-09 -015 2-CR NO. 07-09 -015 3-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B SEPTEM BER11, 2009

_________

_________

_________

__ JOH N BR OW N GR IF FI TH, Appel lan t

v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 31 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF G RAY COUN T Y; ST NOS. 73 00 a nd 7 301 ; HON. STE VEN EMMERT, PRESIDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Opinion

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QU IN N, C .J. , and C AM PBELL and H AN CO CK , J J. Appel lan t John Brow n Gr iffith appeal s from the tr ial co urt’ s j udg ments adj udi cat ing him g uilty of

the of fense s of

indece ncy w ith a child an d sen ten cing him to twenty y ears in prison. App ellant had pled guilty to the origi nal charges and w as place d on probat io n in March of 200 7. T he St ate f iled a m otion to proce ed w ith his adju dicatio n of g uilt beca use he pur por

tedl y v iol ated that ter m of hi s probati on bar ri ng him from “freq uent[ ing ] a re as
w here c hil dren c ong re g ate.” The prov is ion w as v iol ated, accordin g to the S tate, w hen heT he rec ord co ntai ns evi de nc e t ha t ap pe l l an t ha d e ntered t he l i bra ryon ot he r oc c as i on s . H ow eve r, 1 when he di d so went unm ent i oned. And because t hose i nst ances m ay or m ay not hav e occu r r ed b ef or e t he condi t i ons o fpr obat i on wer e i m posed, t hey const i t ut e no ev i dence of hi s v i ol at i ng t hose condi t i ons. I n ot her wor ds, unt i l t he St at e pr ov es when t hey happened , one cannot concl ude t hat t hey happened af t er app el l ant w a s o b l i g a te d to a b i d e b y th e re s tri c ti o n . 2 v is it ed the L ov ett Lib ra ry on J anuar

y 12, 2008. The tr ial co urt found t he al leg ati on to be tr ue and adj udi cat ed appe ll ant g uil ty of ind ecency

w it h a c hil d. Appel la n t co n tends on appeal thatthe ev ide nce is factual ly i nsuffici ent b ecaus e the Sta te prov ed th at he v is it ed the l ibrar y onl y one ti me, and doi ng so one ti me does not fall w it hin the ambitof “freq uent. ” W e ag re e and re v erse the j udg ments. W e i nit ial ly

note thata ty pic al factual su ff ic ien cy rev iew i s i nappl ic abl e to a re v ocat ion appeal

. Che rr y v . St ate, 215 S. W .3d 917, 919 ( Tex . Ap p.–F ort W orth 20 07, p et.
re f’d)

. Ins tead, the deci si on is re v iew ed under the sta ndard of ab used dis creti on. W il ki ns
v. State, 279 S. W .3d 7 01, 7 03- 04 ( Te x. Ap p .–Amari ll o 2007, no p et.)

. And w hen deter mini ng i f the tr ial co urt abu sed it s d is creti on, w e v iew the ev ide nce and i nferenc es theref ro m i n a lig ht mos t fav orabl e to the t ri al cour t’ s d eci si on. Id. at 70 4. On t he ot her hand, deci si ons impl ic ati ng q uest ion s o f law do n ot recei v e s imi lar

deferen ce. Ne xt , t he o nly cond ition of app ellant ’s comm unity supervisi on which he allegedly
v iol ated re q uired th at he “ not freq uent areas w here c hil dren c ong re g ate s uch as: fast food est abl is hm e n ts, par ks , pl ay g ro unds, si tes of sc hool functi ons, sh oppi ng mal ls , v ide o arcad es, or skatin g rinks . . . .” As previ ously ment ione d, ap pellan t b re a c h ed th is
re str icti on, a cc ordin g to the Stat e, by enter ing the Lov ett Lib ra ry on J anuar y 12, 2008. So, dis posi ti on of thi s a ppeal i s d ependentupon the mean ing of “freq uent. ” Ac cordin g to appel lan t, the w ord c onnotes mul ti ple i nst ances , as oppos ed to one, and b e ca u se the Stat e fail ed to prov e tha t he w ent t o the l ib ra ry o n m o re than one occ asi on after bei ng p l a c e d o n p ro b a t i o n , i tfa i l e d t o s a t i s fy i t s b u rd e n o f p ro o f. 13

Appel lan t’ s p osi ti on i s s uppor ted bycase l aw . For

i nst ance, i n Stov

all v. Sta te, 683 S.W .2d 8 91 ( Te x. Ap p .– Fo rt W orth 19 85, p et. re f’d) , t he c our t w as ask ed to dete rmi ne
w het her a on e time app eara nce in a b ar v iolate d a term o f p roba tion d irecting Stovall against “f requent ing” place s w here a lcoho lic be v erages w ere sold. T he co urt held thatit did not. Id. at 89 3. It so ru led due to the common meanin g of t he w ord. Acc ordin g to it , “freq uent” enc ompass ed “ an ev ent t hat h appen[e d] more tha n one ti me or m o re t han a single occurrence .” Id. T hatin terpret ation a lso hap pen s to com port wi th th e on e foun d in the M er ri am-W ebst er

C oll eg iat e D ic ti onar

y , w herein the w ord i s i nter preted as meanin g “ to
ass oci ate wit h, be i n, or resor t t o often or hab itually .” M ERR I AM -W EBST ER ’ S C O L L E G I A TE D I CTI ONA RY 500 (1 1 e d

. 2003) ( emphasi s a dded)

. The Sto vall court he ld tha t a single th epi sode of be ing in a bar coul d not s uppor t t he rev ocat ion of Stov all ’s probati on. Id. We
see n o reaso n to de v iate f rom th is precede nt an d the p lain me anin g assigned to the word “freq uent. ” Non ethel ess , t he State prop osed thatbecause appel lan t, dur ing thi s o ne epi sode,
no t o n l y e n t e re d t h e l i b ra r y t o u s e a c o mp u t e r l o c a t e d a c ro s s fro m a 1 5
- y e a r- old g ir l but also sat next to stairs w hich led to a children ’s area up stairs, his action s showed mu ltiple in st a n ce s of his bei ng w here k ids co ng re g ate. W e find the a rg ument i nterest ing though unpersuas iv e. If acc epted, i t w oul d al so suppo rtthe noti on th at w it h eac h s tep a ppel lan t too k tow ards the comp ute r and sta irw ell, he com mitt ed a dditio nal v iolation s since w ith ea ch step he w as geographically in a dif feren t place in relation to the childre n. Reaso n cou nsels ag ain st spl itti ng hai rs so finel y . Indeed, the Sto vall courtfocus ed on the e pis ode or ev ent
as a w hole as opp osed to instan c e s o f cond uct w ithin th e event to a ssess the ex istence4

of a potent ial v iol ati on. Mo re i mport antl y , t he c ondi ti on before us i tse lf d efined t he g eog ra phi c sc ope cont emplat ed by the w ord “a re a” w hen it added “f a st food est abl is hments , par ks , pl ay g ro unds, si tes of sc hool functi ons, sh oppi ng mal ls, v ide o ar cades , or

sk ati ng r ink s” as ex amples of t he re str ic ted areas. Vi ew ed th ro ug h the l ens of ejusdemgen eris , see Thom as v. State, 65 S.W .3d 38, 4 1 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2001) ( defini ng the p ri nci ple as one int er preti ng g eneral w ords that follo w an e numerati on of par ti cul ar or specif ic things by

conf ining the m ean ing of the gene ral w ords to th ings of the sam e kind), thos e ex amples des cr ibe a l ocat ion i n g eneral or as a w hol e, no t s pec if ic p a rt s o f the
w hol e. So w e c annot say thatthe Stat e’s pos it ion ac curatel y i nter preted the rest ri cti on. In v iew of thi s, w e optnot to c onst ru e the rest ri cti on here in a w ay diff erent than w hat w as encompas sed w it hin the pla in meanin g of the w ords act ual ly us ed. In sum, the State fai led to prov e tha t app ell ant “ freq uent[ ed]” a pl ace w here c hil dren cong re g ated by

si mply sh ow ing thathe w as once in a l ibrary a fte r b ein g extended communi ty

su per v is ion

. Thus, w e rev erse the j udg ments adj udi cat ing appel lan t’ s g uil t and dis mis s t he moti ons to proceed w it h the adj udi cat ion of g uil t. See G ar ci a v . St ate , 571 S.W .2d 8 96, 9 00 (T e x. Crim . Ap p. 19 78) ( re v ersi ng j udg ment and di smi ss ing moti on to
rev oke). Br ian Qui nn Chief Justice Publ is h.