Court Opinion

ID: 9556414
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-17 07:11:06.552476+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:59.007427
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS
                                    EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                                         EL PASO, TEXAS

    MARC LOUIS CHAMPOUX,                                §                 No. 08-23-00120-CR

                                   Appellant,           §                    Appeal from the

    v.                                                  §             290th Judicial District Court

    THE STATE OF TEXAS,                                 §                Of Bexar County, Texas

                                   Appellee.            §                  (TC# 2021CR5083)

                                               OPINION

                                             BACKGROUND

         In two issues, Appellant claims the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his

community supervision and adjudicating his guilt. 1 We affirm.

                                 Factual and Procedural Background

         Appellant was placed on ten years’ probation for violating a protective order with two prior

convictions. Per the terms and conditions of his probation, Appellant was required to submit to

drug testing as directed by the trial court, court officer, or supervision officer (Condition No. 2).

The State later alleged Appellant violated the terms of his probation and moved to revoke

1
  This case was transferred from our sister court in Bexar County, Texas pursuant to the Texas Supreme Court’s
authority under Chapter 73 of the Government Code. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. Section 73. We follow the precedent
of the Fourth Court of Appeals to the extent it might conflict with our own. See TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3.
Appellant’s probation. The State alleged Appellant violated Condition No. 2 by failing to submit

to drug testing on or about September 14, 2022. 2

        A revocation hearing was held and Appellant’s probation officer, Courtney Villareal,

testified. According to Villareal’s testimony, she met with Appellant via Zoom on September 14,

2022, and instructed him to submit to drug testing by the end of that week. Villareal testified

Appellant indicated he understood he needed to submit to drug testing, but Appellant did not do

so. She explained that probationers typically have 24 hours to comply, but it depends on the day,

and she usually gives till end of the week. When asked whether she gave Appellant till the end of

the week, she responded she did.

        Appellant did not submit to drug testing either that day, or by the end of that week. Villareal

was asked whether she took notes during her Zoom meeting with Appellant, whether she sent

emails, or has any other correspondence to confirm or corroborate she told Appellant he had to

submit to drug testing by the end of the week of September 14, 2022. Villareal testified her

instruction to Appellant to submit to drug testing by the end of that week was verbal. According

to Villareal, she can confirm whether a probationer has submitted to a drug test via the lab website

and explained, it “states the day they took the test, what day it went to the lab or what day it was

received, what day they tested it, what it was positive or negative for, if it was diluted and what it

was positive for. It goes into that detail.” There was nothing in the system regarding Appellant

submitting to a drug test for the week of September 14, 2022. When asked whether she followed

up with Appellant when she saw he had not submitted to a drug test, Villareal responded she did

not because that is Appellant’s sole responsibility.

2
  The State also alleged Appellant violated Condition No. 2 by submitting an invalid sample for drug testing; this
allegation was waived. In its third allegation, the State alleged Appellant violated No. Condition 13 by failing to
complete 200 hours of community service restitution; the trial court found this not to be true.

                                                        2
       According to Appellant’s testimony, during his September 14th Zoom meeting with

Villareal, she ordered him to submit to drug testing by October 5, 2022. On cross-examination,

Appellant confirmed he did not submit to drug testing by October 5, 2022, because he was arrested

on September 29, 2022.

       The trial court found true that Appellant violated Condition No. 2, revoked his probation,

and assessed a sentence of ten years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Correctional

Institutions Division. This appeal followed.

                                           DISCUSSION

       In Issue One, Appellant argues the State failed to prove he violated the terms of his

probation by a preponderance of the evidence. In Issue Two, Appellant contends he was denied

due process because according to Appellant, the trial court revoked his probation on factors not

alleged by the State. We disagree.

                             Standard of Review and Applicable Law

       We review a trial court’s order revoking probation for an abuse of discretion. Cardona v.

State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (en banc). In reviewing a revocation order,

we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict, giving deference to the trial court’s

credibility determinations and to the findings of the violations as true or not. Garrett v. State, 619

S.W.2d 172, 174 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1981). The central issue to be determined in

reviewing a trial court’s discretion in probation revocation cases is whether the probationer was

afforded due process of law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Cardona, 665 S.W.2d at 494.

       In probation revocation cases, the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence

that a condition of supervision was violated. Id. at 493. “Proof of a single violation is sufficient.”

                                                  3
Hardee v. State, No. 04-22-00209-CR, 2023 WL 4854837, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio July

31, 2023) (mem. op.); Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980).

This burden is satisfied when the greater weight of the credible evidence creates a reasonable belief

that a condition of probation has been violated. Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763-64 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2006) (quoting Scamardo v. State, 517 S.W.2d 293, 298 (Tex. Crim. App.1974)).

       On appeal, Appellant must successfully challenge each violation and present facts to show

reasonable grounds exist to overturn the trial court’s findings of true that led to his adjudication.

Smith v. State, 286 S.W.3d 333, 342 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009).

                                             Analysis

                                           ISSUE ONE
       In Issue One, Appellant argues the State failed to prove he violated the terms of his

probation by a preponderance of the evidence. As articulated above, the State alleged Appellant

violated Condition No. 2 on or about September 14, 2022. At the revocation hearing, Villareal

testified that on September 14, 2022, she met with Appellant via Zoom and verbally told him to

submit to drug testing by the end of that week, and he understood that he had to do so. Appellant

did not do so. She explained she can verify if a probationer has submitting to drug testing by

checking the laboratory’s website, which did not reflect that Appellant had submitted to drug

testing. Appellant, on the other hand, testified Villareal gave him until October 5, 2022—not by

end of the week of September 14, 2022—to submit to drug testing, but he failed to do so because

he was arrested on September 29, 2022. This was purely a matter of credibility before the

factfinder. Accordingly, the trial judge was the sole trier of fact, and we must defer to its

determinations of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony.

Gutierrez v. State, No. 14-09-01034-CR, 2010 WL 4892310, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th

                                                 4
Dist. 2010) (mem. op.). Accordingly, because a single violation of the terms of probation is

sufficient to revoke probation, the State met its burden, and the trial court did not abuse its

discretion. See id. (“The question of whom to believe is a credibility issue; we must conclude the

trial court’s implied finding that appellant’s story was not believable.”); see also Moore, 605

S.W.2d at 926. Issue One is overruled.

                                                    ISSUE TWO

         In Issue Two, Appellant argues he was denied due process because he was “denied written

statements by the fact finder as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for revoking probation.”

Appellant emphasizes that probationers should be afforded fair notice of the violations alleged and

of the violations the trial court relied upon in revoking probation, and we agree. The crux of

Appellant’s argument, however, is that the trial court’s decision to revoke his probation was unduly

influenced by a pending murder charge against him. Appellant also points our attention to an

“additional 160 pages in the State’s Exhibit list that are part of this appellate record and that would

have readily [been] available to the Trial Court.” 3 Appellant is referring to State’s Exhibit 1, which

was admitted without objection at the bond reduction hearing, not the revocation hearing.

         Appellant argues the exhibit “would have [been] readily available to the Trial Court. This

is especially eviden[t] since the pending Murder charge was set for trial the following month before

the same Trial Court.” According to Appellant, “it strains credibility to think that [the murder

charge] had no prejudicial effect” on the trial court’s decision to revoke his probation, but he

neglects to point to anything in the record to confirm this.

3
  We note that Appellant designated this complained of exhibit on appeal, but we ultimately conclude it is outside the
appellate record because it was not admitted or entered at the revocation hearing, which is the matter at hand on appeal.

                                                           5
          The complained of exhibit was not admitted or entered at the revocation hearing. The

revocation hearing was heard before the Honorable Jennifer Pena of the 290th Judicial Criminal

District Court of Bexar County, Texas, and the bond reduction hearing was heard before the

Honorable Andrew W. Carruthers of the 290th Judicial Criminal District Court of Bexar County,

Texas. The exhibit index is not germane to the order being challenged on appeal—the judgment

revoking Appellant’s probation—and to reiterate, it was not admitted or entered at the revocation

hearing. We will not speculate as to what the trial court could have based its decision upon,

especially considering the complained of exhibit was neither admitted nor entered at the revocation

hearing, and thus, was not part of the revocation hearing record, and the trial court plainly set out

its basis for revocation—violation of Condition No. 2. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i). Our review has

failed to uncover any extraneous material the trial judge considered outside the revocation hearing

record.

          In any case, we find Appellant was afforded due process. As part of the terms of

Appellant’s probation, Appellant was required to submit to drug testing as directed by the trial

court, court officer, or supervision officer (Condition No. 2). The State alleged Appellant violated

Condition No. 2 by failing to submit to drug testing on or about September 14, 2022. As articulated

above, at trial, it became a matter of Villareal’s word against Appellant’s. The trial court, as the

ultimate factfinder of credibility determinations, concluded Appellant violated Condition No. 2 as

alleged by the State. The revocation judgment contained the following: “Conditions Violated: 2

AS SET OUT IN THE STATE’S MOTION TO REVOKE.” Appellant himself acknowledges this

in his appellate brief, in which he provides, “On February 28, 2023, the Trial Court found a single

technical violation against Appellant for failing to submit to drug testing on September 14, 2022.”

Appellant was afforded notice of the State’s allegations, and the revocation judgment specifically

                                                 6
provides the ground for revocation—violation of Condition No. 2. Due process was satisfied. Issue

Two is overruled.

                                        CONCLUSION
       For these reasons, we affirm.

                                             YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Chief Justice

August 16, 2023

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)

                                                 7