AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed April 2, 2020 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00022-CR 

No. 05-19-00023-CR 

IBRAHEIM KADAR STROGGINS, Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 204th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause Nos. F12-72353-Q; F12-61723-Q 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Bridges, Molberg, and Partida-Kipness 

Opinion by Justice Bridges 

Ibraheim Kadar Stroggins appeals his aggravated robbery conviction in cause 

number 05-19-00022-CV and his burglary with intent to commit robbery conviction 

in cause number 05-19-00023-CV. The trial court adjudicated appellant’s guilt and 

sentenced him to fifteen years’ confinement in each case. In two issues, appellant 

argues the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him to fifteen years’ 

confinement because that punishment violates the objectives of the penal code. We 

affirm the trial court’s judgments. 
 –2– 

 In late 2012, appellant was charged by indictment with the underlying 

offenses. At a hearing in May 2015, appellant entered a guilty plea to each offense. 

Appellant testified he ran into his cousin and another man at a bus station. The three 

went to a house they had heard contained “dope and money.” Appellant testified he 

did not have a gun, and “all [he] did was grab stuff in the house.” Appellant also 

testified he was in the room while a girl in the house was being raped by one of his 

accomplices. In response to questioning, appellant testified that he had been in jail 

most of the time these cases were pending except for three months when appellant 

was released and put “on the monitor.” However, appellant “violated [his] monitor” 

and went back to jail. Appellant testified he understood that, if the judge gave him 

deferred adjudication and he “messed up,” he could come back and the judge could 

give him “life in prison.” The trial court placed appellant on deferred adjudication 

community supervision for a period of ten years in each case. In September 2017, 

the State filed a motion to revoke appellant’s probation and proceed with an 

adjudication of guilt in each case, alleging, among other things, that appellant had 

failed to report to the community supervision office in June, July, or August 2017. 

In October 2017, at a hearing before the same judge who had placed appellant on 

community supervision, the trial judge admonished appellant that he “would be 

looking at prison time” if he continued to fail to report. The State filed a motion to 

withdraw its motions to revoke and proceed with adjudication, and the trial court 

granted the motions and continued appellant on probation. 
 –3– 

 In July 2018, the State again filed motions to adjudicate alleging, among other 

things, appellant failed to report to the community supervision office in March, 

April, and June 2018. At a hearing on the motions, appellant entered pleas of true 

to the allegations in the motions and admitted that he was the same individual who 

was placed on community supervision. Appellant testified he worked in landscaping 

and could not always report, but his probation officer told him keeping in contact 

was “the only thing” that he had to do. Appellant testified he kept in contact or left 

a message on the answering machine. Appellant testified he told his employer he 

was on probation, and his employer told him not to come into work on the days he 

had to go to his probation appointments. Appellant admitted he tested positive for 

marijuana in May 2018, but the positive test resulted from an “accident” in which 

appellant ate an “edible” at a party. The trial court stated a note from appellant’s 

probation officer said appellant had not contacted his probation officer for eightynine days. The trial court also noted appellant had “tested positive for weed so many 

times,” the court sent him to a class, but appellant “was still testing positive.” The 

trial court adjudicated appellant guilty of each offense and sentenced him to fifteen 

years’ confinement in each case. These appeals followed. 

 In two issues, appellant argues his fifteen-year sentence in each case violates 

the objectives of the Texas Penal Code. Specifically, appellant argues that, given 

his youth and the minor nature of his violations, the trial court abused its discretion 
 –4– 

in sentencing him to fifteen years in the penitentiary instead of continuing him on 

community supervision. 

 We give a great deal of discretion to a trial judge’s determination of the 

appropriate punishment in any given case. Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809, 814 

(Tex. Crim. App. 1984); Foster v. State, 525 S.W.3d 898, 911 (Tex. App.—Dallas 

2017, pet. ref’d). Additionally, the general rule is that as long as a sentence is within 

the proper range of punishment, it will not be disturbed on appeal. Jackson, 680 

S.W.2d at 814; Foster, 525 S.W.3d at 911. 

 Aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon and burglary with intent to commit 

a felony are both first-degree felonies punishable by imprisonment for 5 to 99 years 

and an optional fine not to exceed $10,000. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 12.32, 

29.03(b), 30.02(d). 

 Appellant’s fifteen-year sentence in each case was well within the proper 

range of punishment. See Jackson, 680 S.W.2d at 814; Foster, 525 S.W.3d at 911. 

Appellant emphasizes the “minor nature of his violations,” presumably the 

violations of the conditions of his community supervision. However, appellant 

ignores the fact that he failed to report to the community supervision office for 

months at a time, despite being given a second chance and placed back on 

community supervision after he repeatedly failed to report in 2017. 

Appellant further cites Jackson for the proposition that there must be evidence 

or facts available to the court and upon which the court could have relied in assessing 
 –5– 

punishment. See Jackson, 680 S.W.2d at 814. The facts before the court were that 

appellant went to a residence with two accomplices and “grab[bed] stuff.” Appellant 

was in the room when one of his accomplices raped a girl in the residence. Appellant 

was temporarily released “on the monitor,” but he violated the terms of his release 

and went back to jail. When placed on community supervision, appellant failed to 

report for months at a time, leading the State to file a motion to revoke. The trial 

judge held a hearing and ultimately gave appellant another chance at community 

supervision. Again, appellant failed to report for months at a time. Under the facts 

and circumstances of this case, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion 

in imposing a fifteen-year sentence in each case. See Jackson, 680 S.W.2d at 814; 

Foster, 525 S.W.3d at 911. Moreover, we cannot conclude appellant’s sentences 

violate the objectives of the Texas Penal Code. See Jackson, 680 S.W.2d at 814. 

We overrule appellant’s first and second issues. 

We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

Do Not Publish 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b) 

190022F.U05 

/David L. Bridges/ 

DAVID L. BRIDGES 

JUSTICE 
 –6– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

IBRAHEIM KADAR STROGGINS, 

Appellant 

No. 05-19-00022-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 204th Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F12-72353-Q. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. 

Justices Molberg and Partida-Kipness 

participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED. 

Judgment entered April 2, 2020 

 
 –7– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

IBRAHEIM KADAR STROGGINS, 

Appellant 

No. 05-19-00023-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 204th Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F12-61723-Q. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges. 

Justices Molberg and Partida-Kipness 

participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED. 

Judgment entered April 2, 2020