### NUM BER 13-06- 0057 1-CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## EDI NBURG
BR UC E W

A YNE H A RB OUR , A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 1 47t h Dist rict C ou rt of T rav is C ou nt y , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re Ju stice s R od rigu ez, Garza, a nd Ve la M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice R od rigu ez This i s a pro b a ti on r ev ocat ion ca se. Ap pel lan t, Br uce W ay ne H ar bour , pl eaded guilty to sexual assau lt a nd was placed o n com mu nity supe rv ision for a term of ten years. The Stat e s ubseq uentl y fil ed a motio n to re v oke appel lan t' s c ommunit y su per v is ion

. A capi as w as is sued and, fourteen y ears lat er , appel lan t w as ar re ste d. After a hear ing , t he2

trial court rev oked a p pellan t's com mu nity supe rv ision an d sen ten ced h im to te n y ears' impr is onment. By thr ee is sues , appel lan t c ontends : (1 ) appl ic ati on of ar ti cl e 42. 12 s ect ion 24 of the Tex as Cod e of Cr imi nal Procedu re to the rev ocat ion proceed ing v iol ated the e x postfacto pr ohi bit ion s o f the Uni ted States and Tex as Con sti tuti ons, see T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. a rt

. 4 2

. 1 2 § 2 4 ; ( 2 ) a p p l i c a t i o n o f a rt i c l e 4 2

. 1 2 s e c t i o n 2 4 t o t h e r ev ocat ion pr oceed ing v iol ated re troact iv e l aw prohi bit ion s o f the Tex as Con sti tuti on, see id. ; and ( 3) the t ri al cour

t er re d i n notdi smi ss ing t h e m o ti on to r ev oke becau se the S tate faile d to de mo ns trat e th ati t us ed du e di l i g en c e i n pros ec ut i ng a pp el l an t' s c as e an d ar r es ti ng h i m. W e affi r m. I. B A CKGRO UND The Stat e's moti on to r ev oke all eg ed th at ap pel lan t vio la ted t he te rms and cond itions of

co mm unity su pervisi on by using cocaine , failing to report, f ailing to main tain
s u it a b le e m p lo ym e n t , fa il in g t o p a y fe e s , a n d fa il in g t o p a rt ic ip a t e in se x o f fe n d e r t h e ra p y. At t he r e v o c a t i o n h e a r i n g , a p p e l l a n t p l e a d e d " t r u e " t o t h e a l l e g a t i o n s
. H o w e v e r, i n a docu me nt en titled " Motion to Dismiss," a ppe llant alleged that t he Sta te failed to exercise due di li g ence in pr osec u ti n g his cas e and in ex ecut ing a v ali d ar re st w ar ra nt w it hin a
re asona ble amount of time. The tr ial co urt den ied appel lan t' s mot ion to dis mis s, found the Sta te's allegation s true, revoked ap pellan t's com mu nity supe rv ision, an d sen ten ced h im to c onfinement in the I nst it uti onal D iv is ion of the Tex as Depa rt ment of C ri minal Ju sti ce for ten y ears. II. C ONSTI TUTI ONA LI TY OF A R TI C LE 42.12, S E CT I ON 24 By hi s first and s econd i ss ues, appel lan t c ontends thata p pli cat ion of amended
arti cl e 42.12, sec ti on 24 of t he Tex as Cod e of C ri minal Procedu re to th e r ev ocat ion3

pr oceed i n g v i o l a t e s t h e e x p o s tfa c t o p r o h i b i t i o n s o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s a n d T e x as Constitu tions a nd violates the Te x as Const itution 's prohibitio n against retroa ctiv e law s. A
. A rt icle 42.12 T he p urpo se of

article 42.1 2 is to pl ace w hol ly

w it hin the sta te cour

ts the res ponsi bil it y

for d eter mini ng w hen the i mposi ti on of sen te n ce in c ertai n c ases sh all be s uspen ded, the condi ti ons of commun ity su per v is ion , and the super

v is ion of defendants pla ced on c ommunit y super v is ion , in cons onanc e w it h the pow ers a ss ig ned to th e judicial bran ch of this gov ernm ent bythe Con stitutio n of Te x as. T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 42.12, § 1 (V er non Su pp. 2 007)

. Eff ect iv e June 18, 2 003, the Tex as Leg is lat ur e ame n d e d arti cl e 42. 12 to extend the t ri al cour t' s c onti nui ng jur is dic ti on to r ev oke communi ty su per v is ion after

the ex pirati on of

the ter m of communi ty super v is ion

. See Act of M ay 30, 2003, 78th Leg ., R. S., ch. 250, §§ 2 , 3, 2003 T EX
. G EN
. L AW S 1158, 1158 ( codi fied atT EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN . ar t. 42.12, §§ 2 1( e) ( Ver non 200 6), 24 (Ve rnon Supp . 200 7). Paragraph (e), w hich w as ad ded to section 21 of article 42. 12, state s: A c our t retai ns jur is dic ti on to hol d a h ear ing under Subs ect ion ( b) and to re v oke, co nti nue, or

modi fy communi ty

su p e rvi si on, reg ar dle ss of w hether the p er iod of c ommunit y super v is ion impos ed on the d efendant has ex pired, if before the e x pirat ion the attor ney r epr esent ing the sta te fil es a moti on to re v oke, co nti nue, or modify communi ty super v is ion and a c api as is i ss ued for the a rrestof the d efendant. T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN . ar t. 42.12, § 21 (e ). The l eg is lat ur e al so added s ect ion 24: F o r t h e p u rp o s e s o f

a h e a ri n g u n d e r S e c t io n
. . . 2 1 (b ), itis a n a f f ir m a t ive defense t o r ev ocat ion for a n al leg ed fail ur e to r epor t t o a s uper

v is ion off ic er as d ir e cted or to rema in w ithin a spe cif ied pla ce tha t a supe rv ision of f icer, peace off ic er , or other off ic er w it h the pow er of ar re st under a w ar ra nt i ss ued by a jud g e for that all eg ed v iol ati on fail ed to co ntac t or att empt t o c ontac t t he def end ant in person at the def end ant 's last known reside nce a ddre ss or last know n empl oy ment add re ss , as r eflect ed i n the fil es of the dep a rt m ent ser v ing the count y

in w hic h the order

of communi ty

su per v is ion w as entered.4

Id. ar t. 42.12 § 24. The st atute i n eff ectw hen app ell ant w as conv ic ted p ro v ide d tha t onc e the defendant
ra is ed th e def ense of lac k of due dil ig ence in a re v ocat ion proceed ing , t he St ate h ad th e burd en to prove b y a p re p o n dera nce o f the evidence that due dilig ence w as use d in
ex e cu ti n g t h e c a p ias and in hol din g a he ar ing on a moti on to r ev oke. See Peaco ck v. State , 77 S. W .3d 285 , 288 (Tex. Cr im. Ap p. 20 02). Af ter the 200 3 am end me nts to article 42.12, l ack

of due di li g ence became an affirmat iv e defense that is l imi ted t o g ro unds for
rev ocat ion alleging fa ilure to repo rt or fa ilure to rem ain in a specif ied pla ce, an d on ly certain spec ificfail ur es by

the Stat e establ is hed t he defense. W heat v. State , 165 S.W .3d 8 02, 805 (Tex

. App.–Tex ar kana 2005, pet. dis m'd) ; see T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN . ar t. 42.12 § 24. B. ExPo stF act o Law An ex post f acto law : (1) pun ishes as a crim e a n a ct previously comm itted w hich
w as inn ocentw hen don e; ( 2) ag g ra v ates a c ri me and mak es itg re ater than i t was w hen itw as commi tted; ( 3) i nflic ts a g re ater puni shmentthan the la w a tt a ch e d to a c ri minal offe n s e w h e n c o mm i t t e d ; o r ( 4 ) a l t e rs t h e l e g a l r u l e s o f e v i d e n c e a n d r e c e i v e s l e s s or dif f eren t testim ony than the law required at the time o f the com mission of

the of fense in
or der to conv ic t t he offender. Car m ell v. T exas , 529 U .S. 513, 524- 25 ( 2000)

. "The r ig ht to be free of ex

p o st f a ct o l aw s a s c onferr ed by the federal and sta te c onst it uti ons is an 'abs olu te' r ig ht." Holcom b v . St ate , 146 S .W .3d 7 23, 7 31 (Te x . App .–A ustin 2 004 , no pe t.). In Carm ell , t he Sup re me C our t c oncl uded: A l aw r educi ng the q uantum o f ev ide nce re q uired to co nv ic t an off ender i s a s g ro ss ly unfair as , s ay , retrospec ti v ely eli minat ing an el ement of the off ense,5

inc re asi ng the puni shmentfor a n ex is ti ng off ense, or low er ing the bur den of pr oof. In each of thes e inst ances , the gov er nment subv erts the p re sumpti on of i nn oc en c e by

r ed uc i ng t he n um be r

o f el em en ts i t mu s t prov e to o v er c om e that pr esumpt ion

. . . . In ea ch ins tanc e, t he g ov er nme n t re fuses, after the fact, t o pl ay

by i ts ow n r ule s, alt er ing them

. . . to faci li tate an eas ier conv ic ti on. 529 U .S. at 53 2- 33. Appel lan t arg ues that he w as enti tl ed to a due dil ig ence defense und er the pr ev iou s law and t h a t a rt ic le 42. 12, section 24, as a me nde d, elim inate d tha t def ense w hen it "chang e[d] the ev ide nti ar y bur dens" by maki ng due dil ig ence an aff ir mati ve d e f e nse. Appel lan t as ser

ts that at t he ti me he c ommitt ed th e v iol ati ons lea din g to the rev ocat ion , t he law r eq uired th e St ate t o pr ese n t m or e ev ide nce at t he r ev ocat ion proceed ing , and pr ov ide d for a def e n se thatpl aced the b ur den of proof on the Stat e. W e c onst ru e appel l a n t ' s a r g u me n t a s a c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e s t a t u t e i s a n e x p o s t fa c t o l a w u n d er the fourth cat eg or

y i n Carm ell ; i.e., th at it alters the legal rules of evidence, and receiv es less or dif f eren t test im o ny tha n the law required a t the time o f the com mission of

the of fense in or der to conv ic t t he offender. See i d. at 525. How ev er , t he pur pose of the r ev ocat ion hear ing w as not t o det er mine w hether appel lan t s houl d be conv ic ted of an offense. The i ss ue atappel lan t' s rev ocat ion hear ing
w as w hether

appel lan t v iol ated the t er ms of co mmunity su per v is ion

. See Le wis

v. Sta te , 195 S.W .3d 205 , 208 -09 ( T ex. App.– San Anto nio 20 06, no pe t.) The result of app ellant 's
rev ocat ion hearing w as not a conviction but a f inding upo n w hich the trial co u rt could
ex er ci se it s dis cr eti on to eit her re v oke or cont inu e appel lan t' s c ommunit y su per v is ion

. See id. at 209.6

Therefor e, arti cl e 42.12, sec ti on 24 does not fall w it hin Carm ell's fourt h c ateg or y of pr ohi bit ed ex

pos t facto l aw s. Se e C arm ell , 5 2 9 U .S . a t 5 2 4 -2 5 . It do e s n o t c h a n ge
ev ide nti ar

y burdens or eli minat e def enses rel ated to appell ant' s c onv ic ti on. See i d. at 532- 33. Acc or din g ly , a rt icl e 42.12, s ect ion 24 d oes not v iol ate t he U nit ed St ates or Tex as
cons ti tuti onal pr ohi bit ion s ag ain st ex post facto law s. See Gr im es v. State , 807 S.W .2d 582, 586 ( Tex . Cr im. App. 1991) (en ban c) ( adopti ng sa me defini ti on of ex pos t facto l aw under th e T ex as Con sti tuti on as the Supr eme C our t app li ed unde r Uni ted S tates Constitu tion). C. T exas R et ro act iv e L aw The Tex as Con sti tuti on s tates that"no

. . . re troact iv e law

. . . s hal l be made. " T EX
. C ON ST . art. I, § 16. "A retroact iv e law lite rally m ean s a law

that acts on th ings w hich are past

. How ev er , notal l sta tutes thatappl y r etroact iv ely

a re c o n stitu ti onal ly

prohi bit ed. A retroact iv e stat ute only v iolate s our C onst itution if , w hen app lied, i t take s away or impairs
v est ed r ig hts ac q uired unde r ex is ti ng l aw ." Subar u of Am ., Inc . v

. D avi d McD avi

d N is san, Inc. , 84 S.W .3d 2 12, 2 19 ( Tex . 200 2)

. W hether the Tex as Con sti tuti on's prohi bit ion ag ain st re troact iv e l aw s a ppl ies to cr imi nal cases has not been d eter mined. See G ri m es , 807 S. W .2d a t 587

. Non ethel ess , ev en assumi ng that the prohi bit ion appl ies to cr imi nal
c a s e s , w e m u s tfi rs td e t e r mi n e w h e t h e r a rt i c l e 4 2

. 1 2 , s e c t i o n 2 4 d e p r i v e d a p p e l l a n to f a
v est ed ri g ht. See S uba ru of Am ., Inc. , 84 S.W .3d a t 219 ; see als o Gr im es , 807 S.W .2d a t 587 -88 (assum ing w ithou t decid ing that article I, sect ion 16 's pro s c ription against
re troac ti ve leg is lat ion appl ies to cr imi nal ca ses , t he c our t of cr imi nal appeal s h eld "the Sta te's con stitutio nal proh ibition a gains t retroactive legi slation is not v iolate d by Articl e7

44.29( b) 's appl ic ati on in the tri al cour t to cases w hic h hue [si c] been rev ersed on appe al for errors comm itted only in the pun ishm ent pha se of trial"). App ellant conte nds th at he had a v este d rig ht i n assertin g a du e diligence de fense at his revo c a t io n he aring, a def ense w hich pla ced th e bu rden of proof on the State . He urges this Court to con clude that beca use am end ed article 42. 12, section 24 distu rbed this
v est ed r ig ht by

shifti ng the bur den of proof to appe ll ant, it s retroact iv e appl ic ati on v iol ates the Tex as Con sti tuti on's prohi bit ion on retroact iv e l aw s. W e dec li ne to do s o. Appel lan t has not ci ted t o s tatut or y auth or it y t h a t a due dil ig ence defense ata pr obati on re v ocat ion hear ing is a v est ed ri g ht, and w e find none. See Peaco ck , 77 S.W .3d at 28 9 (ackno wle d gi n g tha t the re is "no express statu tory aut hority for the due dilig ence defense" at a pr obati on re v ocat ion hear ing ). Fur ther more, appel lan t has not show n tha t h e h a s a v e s t e d i n t e r e s t i n t h e c o mm o n l a w d e fe n s e o f d u e d i l i g e n c e
. See Middleton v. T e x
. P o we r & Lig ht C o. , 108 Te x . 96, 107 , 185 S.W . 556 , 559 (1916 ) ( "[N]o one has a
v est ed i nter esti n the r ule s, themse lv es, of the c ommon l aw ; and i t i s w it hin the pow er of the Leg is lat ur e to chang e the m or enti re ly r epeal them. "). Ther efore, w e c annot conc lud e,
as appel lan t req uest s, that the l eg is lat ur e's ac ti o n i n e liminati ng ce rt ain g ro unds for th e def ense and shif

ting the bu rden of

p roof d isturbe d a v este d rig ht. W e conclu de tha t article 42.12, se cti on 24, as i t i mpacts the is sue of a due dil ig ence defense, does not v iol ate t he Tex as Con sti tuti on. Accordin gly , w e overrule appe llant's f irst and seco nd issue s. III
. D U E D I LI GE NCE By h is th ird is sue, appel lan t c ontends that the Stat e di d notprov e, un der former
arti cl e 42.12, that it ex er ci sed due dil ig ence in ex ecut ing the capi as and co n d u ct in g the8

re v ocat ion hear ing

. How ev er , s ect ion 24 o f arti cl e 42.12 became ef fecti v e June 18, 2003, and a pplies to app ellant 's p roba tion rev ocat ion hea ring w hich w as cond ucte d on Au gust 30, 2 006. See P ena v

. St ate , 201 S.W .3d 764, 765 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 2006) ( noti ng thatthe

" e f f e ct ive d a te [ o f

a rt icl e 4 2 .1 2 , se ct io n 24 ] was Ju n e 18 , 2 0 0 3 , a n d ap p lie s t o al l h e a rin gs
commenc ing on o r after that date, r eg ar dle ss of w h e th e r a defendant w as pla ced on communi ty

su per v is ion before")

. Appel lan t c onced es that under the new st atute , hi s d ue dil ig ence ar g ument l ack s mer it

. Acc or din g ly , w e ov er ru le appel lan t' s t hird i ss ue. IV. C ONCL US I ON W e affi r m.
NE LDA V. RO DR IGU EZ J u s t i c e Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s 1 7th d ay

of Jul y , 200 8.