Court Opinion

ID: 9394822
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-16 15:09:13.809507+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:03.691776
License: Public Domain

Fourth Court of Appeals
                                     San Antonio, Texas
                                MEMORANDUM OPINION

                                        No. 04-22-00275-CR

                                        Antwaine S. BANKS,
                                             Appellant

                                                v.

                                        The STATE of Texas,
                                              Appellee

                    From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
                                  Trial Court No. 2018CR2540
                            Honorable Velia J. Meza, Judge Presiding

Opinion by:      Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Sitting:         Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
                 Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
                 Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 10, 2023

AFFIRMED

           Appellant Antwaine Banks was revoked from probation on several grounds, including

failing to attend and comply with the rules and agreements for the State Accredited Battering

Intervention and Prevention Program. During his testimony on his failure to complete the required

program, Banks made a Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause objection, which the trial court

overruled. Banks now appeals and prays for a new revocation hearing. We affirm the trial court’s

judgment.
                                                                                       04-22-00275-CR

                                           BACKGROUND

       Banks was a probationer who violated the terms of his probation before the end of his

sentence. The State moved to revoke Banks’ probation and invoke his underlying prison term.

The trial court held a hearing where Banks’ probation officer testified, inter alia, to Banks’ failure

to complete the required Battering Intervention and Prevention Program. When the State asked

for more details regarding Banks’ non-compliance with the program, Banks made an objection

under the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause, citing Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36

(2004). The trial court overruled his objection. The State then moved to admit Banks’ “exit letter,”

a report from a BIPP staff member to Banks’ probation officer, which provided the non-

compliance details that Banks had objected to. Banks explicitly waived objection to the State’s

exhibit.

       At the end of the hearing, the trial court revoked Banks’ probationary term on three separate

grounds and sentenced him to five years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice with credit

for time served. Banks appeals.

                                      STANDARD OF REVIEW

           We review a trial court’s decision to revoke a defendant’s probation for an abuse of

discretion. State v. Cabral-Tapia, 572 S.W.3d 751, 753 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2019, pet. ref’d)

(citing John v. State, No. 02-17-00372-CR, 2018 WL 3468490, at *1, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 5533

at *4 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 19, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication)).

To establish an abuse of discretion for a probation revocation, an appellant “must show that no

legitimate grounds support it.” Id. at 754 (citing Alford v. State, 400 S.W.3d 924, 929 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2013)).

                                                 -2-
                                                                                     04-22-00275-CR

                                             WAIVER

A.     Parties’ Arguments

       Banks argues that the trial court erroneously based its decision to revoke his probation on

testimony that violated the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause. The State argues that Banks

waived this argument.

B.     Law

       An appellate complaint is waived when a party fails to make a timely objection, request,

or motion in the trial court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a); Valle v. State, 109 S.W.3d 500, 509 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2003). Such an objection must be made “each time the inadmissible evidence is

offered or obtain a running objection.” Valle, 109 S.W.3d at 509 (citing Ethington v. State, 819

S.W.2d 854, 858 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991)). This means that even when a party objects to one

instance of testimony, the complaint is waived “where the same evidence [e.g., an exhibit

containing the same information] comes in elsewhere without objection.” Id.; accord DeNucci v.

Matthews, 463 S.W.3d 200, 211 (Tex. App.—Austin 2015, no pet.) (citing Schwartz v. Forest

Pharms., Inc., 127 S.W.3d 118, 124 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, pet. denied)).

C.     Analysis

       At Banks’ probation revocation hearing, he objected to his probation officer testifying as

to the reasons he could not complete the Battering Intervention and Prevention Program, claiming

that the testimony violated the Confrontation Clause. He has brought this issue as his sole

complaint on appeal, citing Court of Appeals case Torres v. State, 617 S.W.3d 95 (Tex. App.—

Houston [1st Dist.] 2020, pet. ref’d). However, at the probation revocation hearing, the State

admitted Banks’ exit letter with no objection from Banks. The exit letter stated, “Client has been

EXITED from CATS BIPP program [sic] for violation of BIPP program [sic] policies, excessive

absences, conditions offense, non-payment of fees, violation of conditions of probation or parole,

                                                -3-
                                                                                    04-22-00275-CR

and/or re-offense.” This unobjected-to exit letter contains the information that Banks complains

of on appeal and to which he objected during his probation officer’s testimony. Because the

information was admitted without objection via the BIPP staff member’s report, we conclude that

Banks’ Confrontation Clause complaint is waived. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a); Valle, 109 S.W.3d

at 509.

                                           CONCLUSION

          Although Banks objected to his probation officer’s testimony regarding the reasons he was

expelled from the Battering Intervention and Prevention Program, he did not object to the same

information being admitted through a state’s exhibit. Therefore, Banks’ sole complaint on appeal

is waived, and we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                                  Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Do not publish

                                                 -4-