Court Opinion

ID: 9890066
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-12 08:10:57.459978+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:03:05.427146
License: Public Domain

In The
                             Court of Appeals
                    Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

                                   No. 07-23-00090-CR

                       KYLE DANIEL MURRAY, APPELLANT

                                           V.

                         THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

                         On Appeal from the 100th District Court
                                  Donley County, Texas
                 Trial Court No. 4033, Honorable Stuart Messer, Presiding

                                   October 5, 2023
                           MEMORANDUM OPINION
                    Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ.

      Kyle Daniel Murray appeals from the trial court’s judgment adjudicating him guilty

of possessing a controlled substance, revoking his community supervision, and

sentencing him to ten years imprisonment. He challenges the judgment through six

issues.   Each involves the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the decision to

adjudicate his guilt and revoke his community supervision. Further, each focuses on the

argument that the testifying witness lacked personal knowledge of the violations and

lacked personal knowledge of the information contained within the “chronos,” or
chronological records maintained by the probation department, and that those records

were inadmissible due to the failure of the State to prove each element of the predicate

for admission of a business record. We affirm.

      Background

      In mid-February 2019, appellant was placed on deferred adjudication community

supervision for a period of five years. The State filed a motion to revoke same, alleging

appellant violated several conditions to remaining on deferred adjudication community

supervision. At the hearing, the State offered testimony of Megan Gribble, a probation

officer and the deputy director for the 100th Judicial District CSCD. She employed the

substance of the “chronos,” as well as her own personal knowledge, to establish the

violations committed by appellant. Appellant objected to the admission of the “chronos,”

which objections the trial court overruled. Ultimately, the trial court found the evidence

sufficient to support revocation and, therefore, revoked appellant’s community

supervision, adjudicated him guilty of possessing a controlled substance, and assessed

punishment as noted.

      Analysis

      In raising his complaints before this court, appellant contends Gribble failed to

establish that either she had personal knowledge of the information contained within the

entries in the “chronos” or that they were made at or near the time of the event sought to

be recorded. As such, he asserts, there was no proper predicate set forth to allow for

admission of the “chronos” as a business record. We overrule the issues.

      The only question before this court when reviewing an order revoking community

supervision is whether the trial court abused its discretion. Hacker v. State, 389 S.W.3d

                                            2
860, 865 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493 (Tex. Crim.

App.1984). In a revocation proceeding, the State is required to prove by a preponderance

of the evidence that the probationer violated a condition of community supervision as

alleged in the motion to revoke. Cardona, 665 S.W.2d at 493. Proof of a single violation

is sufficient. Garcia v. State, 387 S.W.3d 20, 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012).

       Here, the record shows Gribble was “personally there” when appellant signed his

admission to the use of methamphetamine while on probation. In other words, she had

personal knowledge of appellant’s admission. Thus, her testimony about same was not

hearsay.    Accordingly, the trial court was free to revoke appellant’s community

supervision on that ground alone. Johnson v. State, No. 07-22-00344-CR, 2023 Tex.

App. LEXIS 5128, at *6 (Tex. App.—Amarillo July 7, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op., not

designated for publication) (proof of a single violation of the terms and conditions of

community supervision is sufficient to support a trial court’s decision to revoke probation);

see Walker v. State, No. 07-21-00074-CR, 2021 Tex. App. LEXIS 9389, at *3 (Tex. App.—

Amarillo Nov. 18, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (stating same).

Gribble also had personal knowledge of and testified to various other violations

encompassed within the motion to revoke and committed by appellant.

       Further, we have held that a chronological file compiled by a community

supervision officer “may be admissible as a business record, even when the testifying

witness does not have personal knowledge of the entries in the file, so long as the person

who made the entries did have personal knowledge of the facts therein.” Murray v. State,

No. 07-23-00013-CR, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 6480, at *2 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Aug. 23,

2023, no pet. h.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); see Estrada v. State, No. 07-

                                             3
21-00298-CR, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 1049, at *6 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Feb. 17, 2023, no

pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Gribble testified she was the custodian

and representative of the department who made and kept the “chronos.” Her testimony

also showed that 1) the records were made in the regular course of the department’s

business; 2) the department’s regular practice was to make those records; 3) an

employee of the department made them; 4) the records were made at or near the time of

the event described therein; 5) she was the actual record keeper; and 6) the reports

offered into evidence were exact duplicates of the originals.           By expressing this

information, Gribble’s testimony addressed, and satisfied, the elements to the business

record exception to the hearsay rule. See TEX. R. EVID. 803(6)(A)-(D) (specifying the

elements).   Consequently, we cannot say that the trial court erred in admitting the

“chronos.”    Furthermore, the evidence within them sufficed to illustrate, by a

preponderance of the evidence, that appellant violated one or more conditions of his

community supervision.

       Therefore, the trial court’s decision to adjudicate guilt and revoke community

supervision was supported by more than a preponderance of the evidence. We overrule

appellant’s issues and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

                                                        Brian Quinn
                                                        Chief Justice

Do not publish.

                                             4