AFFIRMED; Opinion Filed May 19, 2014. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 13
- 00098
- CR JOSEPH JUSTIN WALLACE , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee
On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F10
- 24982
- R 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Lang

- Miers, Myers, and Lewis Opinion by Justice Myers Appellant Joseph Justin Wallace pleaded guilty to aggravated assa ult involving family violence, with a deadly weapon. The trial court deferred adjudication of guilt, made affirmative findings of family violence and a deadly weapon, and placed appellant on community supervision for a period of three years. The State f iled its first motion to proceed with an adjudication of guilt two months later, which it subsequently withdrew. The Court then modified conditions of community supervision to include appellant’s participation in the Substance Abuse Punishment Facility Pr ogram. The State filed a second motion to proceed with an adjudication of guilt, and later an amended motion. Appellant pleaded not true to the allegations in the State’s amended motion. The trial court found the allegations in the motion true, adjudica ted appellant’s guilt, and assessed a punishment of twenty years’ imprisonment. In one issue, appellant contends the trial court committed constitutional error by refusing to allow him to claim the Fifth– 2

– Amendment privilege against self

- incrimination. We affirm.
D ISCUSSION The State’s amended motion to proceed with an adjudication of guilt alleged that appellant violated the following four conditions of his probation: (a) JOSEPH JUSTIN WALLACE did violate condition (a) by violating the laws of the State of Texas in that on or about 9/5/11 in Dallas County, Texas, s(he) did commit Assault BI/FV [ B odily I njury/ F amily V iolence]. (d) JOSEPH JUSTIN WALLACE did violate condition (d) in that s(he) did not report to the community supervision office as directed for 9/24/11 & September, 2011 [sic]

. (e) JOSEPH JUSTIN WALLACE did violate condition (e) in that s(he) failed to give 24 hours[’] notice to any changes in home or employment address. (s) JOSEPH JUSTIN WALLACE did violate condition (s) in that s(he) did n ot complete SAFPF [Substance Abuse Felony Punishment Facility] [and] was removed due to behavioral issues. Appellant ple a d ed not true to the se allegations

. At the revocation hearing, the trial court heard testimony from the complainant in the September 2011 assault , the Irving police officer who investigated it, and appellant’s probation officer

. In addition, a ppellant took the stand. During cross

- examination, the State asked him whether he committed the assault alleged in the motion

. Appellant attemp ted to “[p]lead the Fifth,” but the trial court instructed a ppellant to answer, and he admitted to the assault. Appellant also admitted to the other three probation violations. At the end of the hearing, the trial court found the State’s allegations true , granted the State’s motion , found appellant guilty, and sentenced him to twenty years’ imprisonment. Although a criminal defendant cannot be compelled to testify, the general rule is that if he exercises his right to testify, whether at the guilt

- innocen ce stage or at the punishment stage of the trial, he is subject to the same rules of examination and cross

- examination as any other witness. See Felder v. State , 848 S.W.2d 85, 99 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); Cantu v. State , 738 S.W.2d 249, 255 (Tex. Crim. App . 1987). The scope of cross

- examination in Texas is “ wide– 3

– open, ” and once a defendant decides to testify, he opens himself up to cross

- examination on any relevant subject matter. Felder , 848 S.W.2d at 99. By choosing to testify at the revocation hearing , appellant w aived his right against self

- incrimination and subjected himself to cross

examination regarding any matters relevant to the revocation hearing

. See Hernandez v. State , 506 S.W.2d 884, 886 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974) ( “ It is well established that w hen an accused voluntarily takes the stand he waives his privilege against self

- incrimination at the hearing at which he takes the stand. ”). Since the State cited the September 2011 assault as a ground f o r revoking his probation, that offense was obviously relevant to the revocation proceeding

. Additionally , we note that the cases principally relied upon by appellant

–– Blackmon v.
State , 642 S.W.2d 499 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982); Scott v. State , 940 S.W.2d 353 (Tex. Ap p.

— Dallas 1997, pet. ref’d); Malloy v. Hogan , 378 U.S. 1 (1964)

–– are clearly distinguishable from the present case

. Malloy concerned a defendant who was, sixteen months after he pleaded guilty to a gambling

- related offense, ordered to te stify before a re feree investigat ing gambling and other criminal activities. Malloy , 378 U.S. at 3. When he refused to answer the questions put to
him on the ground that the answers “may tend to incriminate me,” the court held him in contempt and ordered him jailed until he agreed to testify

. Id

. The Supreme Court held that this treatment violated the defendant’s right against self

- incrimination. See id . at 11

– 12. Blackmon and Scott are likewise distinguishable in that they involved situat ions where the person invoking the privilege against self

- incrimination was a witness , not the accused on trial

. See Blackmon , 642 S.W.2d at 500; Scott , 942 S.W.2d at 356. Appellant was the defendant in the proceedings below, not a witness. He waived his right against self

- incrimination when h e voluntarily took the stand at the revocation hearing , therefore, the trial court did not err by refusing his request to limit the State’s cross

- examination.
W e o verrule appellant ’ s issue on appeal.– 4

– W e a f firm the trial court’s judgment.

/ Lana Myers/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
Do Not Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47 130098F.U05– 5

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
JOSEPH JUSTIN WALLACE, Appellant
No. 05

- 13

- 00098

- CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F10

- 24982

- R. Opinion delivered by Justice Myers. Justices Lang

- Miers and Lewis participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED

. Judgment entered this 19th day of May, 2014.

/Lana Myers/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE