Court Opinion

ID: 9377546
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-08 07:09:05.687157+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:14.850972
License: Public Domain

AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed March 1, 2023

                                    S In The
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                               No. 05-22-00371-CR

               BRADLEY SHERMAN HAYCRAFT, Appellant
                               V.
                   THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

               On Appeal from the 199th Judicial District Court
                            Collin County, Texas
                   Trial Court Cause No. 199-83184-2017

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
                 Before Justices Molberg, Reichek, and Breedlove
                          Opinion by Justice Breedlove

      The trial court revoked appellant Bradley Sherman Haycraft’s community

supervision and subsequently convicted and sentenced him to 180 days in state jail.

Appellant now appeals, complaining that the State’s petition to enter a final

adjudication of guilt was fundamentally defective. Concluding that appellant failed

to preserve his complaint, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                               I.     BACKGROUND

      Appellant was indicted for the state jail felony offense of possession of a

controlled substance, and on January 25, 2018, appellant pleaded guilty to the
offense charged. The trial court found that the evidence substantiated appellant’s

guilt and placed him under deferred adjudication community supervision. On

December 1, 2021, the State filed a petition to enter a final adjudication alleging that

appellant committed three criminal offenses—violations of the Texas Securities

Act1—while under community supervision.

        Prior to the revocation hearing, appellant filed a “Motion to Quash the State’s

Motion to Adjudicate for Failure to Consider and Grant Early Termination of

Community Supervision.” He complained that the Court failed to consider and grant

early termination of his community supervision in violation of Code of Criminal

Procedure 42A.701(b). Appellant did not complain that the State’s petition was

fundamentally defective.

        On March 17, 2022, appellant appeared for his probation revocation hearing

and requested the trial court take up his motion to quash. The trial court noted on

the record that the motion to quash did not appear to object to the contents of the

State’s petition and instead appeared to be a motion for early release. The trial court

asked appellant’s counsel several times what specifically it was that appellant was

seeking to quash. The following exchange ensued:

    1
      The State alleged three specific violations of the Texas Securities Act. At the time the State filed its
petition to enter a final adjudication of appellant’s guilt, the applicable statutory provisions were contained
in the Revised Civil Statutes; effective January 1, 2022, the provisions were moved to the Government
Code. See Act of May 21, 2019, 86th Leg., R.S., ch. 491, 2019 TEX. GEN. LAWS 1239 (current version at
TEX. GOV’T CODE §§ 4007.201 et seq.

                                                     –2–
      DEFENSE COUNSEL: Please the Court? I believe the statute
      specifically says and that is 42A.701 as well as B and D. It specifically
      says—and I hate to use the word with a district judge “shall” or
      “mandatory,” because y’all don’t have to do anything. I don’t care what
      the law says. But it does use the word “shall.” He has done more than
      one half of it. And there are certain mandatory matters from my
      understanding and my experience that the probation officer or
      supervision officer, if you will call her, must bring to you any
      malfeasance that Mr. Haycraft might have done. And that’s specifically
      in the statute. And that’s why I am saying quash. Does that make
      sense?

      THE COURT: No. You quash a pleading. So their pleading on file is
      the State’s Petition to Adjudicate. So if you’re urging a Motion to
      Quash, presumably you would be attempting to quash their pleading
      right now, which is the Petition to Adjudicate. So when you’re arguing
      a Motion to Quash, you’re arguing some sort of deficiency within the
      pleading. And I haven’t heard that. You keep taking me to this early
      release argument that we’re not on yet. I’m simply on what are you
      seeking to quash within their Petition to Adjudicate?

      DEFENSE COUNSEL: The whole motion itself. And I think the
      statute specifically says exactly what you are respectfully supposed to
      do. Not only you, but the probation officer.

Without a specific complaint about the sufficiency of the State’s petition, the court

proceeded to consider appellant’s complaint about his entitlement to early release.

The court rejected appellant’s argument that code of criminal procedure article

42A.701 required appellant’s discharge from community supervision. Accordingly,

the court denied appellant’s motion to quash.

      The trial court then proceeded to hear evidence on whether adjudication of

guilt was warranted based on subsequent violations of community supervision

alleged in the State’s petition. The trial court found that appellant had violated the

                                         –3–
terms and conditions of community supervision as alleged by the State and

proceeded to adjudication. The court found appellant guilty and sentenced him to

180 days in state jail.

      Appellant appealed the trial court’s sentence on August 15, 2022. In one

issue, appellant complains that the State’s petition was fundamentally defective and

in violation of due process of law “for failing to properly and fully give notice to

appellant as to the manner and means of his alleged violations of the terms and

conditions of community supervision.” In response, the State argues that even if the

State’s petition were defective, appellant failed to properly preserve the error for

appellate review.

                          II.    APPLICABLE LAW

      To preserve error for appellate review, an appellant must show that he

objected in the trial court and that his objection “stated the grounds for the ruling

that the complaining party sought from the trial court with sufficient specificity to

make the trial court aware of the complaint, unless the specific grounds were

apparent from the context.” TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A); Clark v. State, 365

S.W.3d 333, 339 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). The issue on appeal must comport with

the objection made at trial. Id. (citing Thomas v. State, 723 S.W.2d 696, 700 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1986)). If a party fails to properly object to the sufficiency of the State’s

motion at trial, these errors can be forfeited. Martinez v. State, 493 S.W.2d 954, 955

(Tex. Crim. App. 1973) (internal citations omitted).

                                          –4–
      The objecting party must “let the trial judge know what he wants, why he

thinks he is entitled to it, and to do so clearly enough for the judge to understand him

at a time when the judge is in the proper position to do something about it.” Pena v.

State, 285 S.W.3d 459, 464 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (quoting Lankston v. State, 827

S.W.2d 907, 909 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992)). In determining whether an argument on

appeal comports with an objection made at trial, we look to the context of the

objection and the shared understanding of the parties at the time. Lankston, 827

S.W.2d at 911. A trial court’s ruling will not be reversed based on a legal theory

that the complaining party did not present to it. State v. Story, 445 S.W.3d 729, 732

(Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (citing Hailey v. State, 87 S.W.3d 118, 122 (Tex. Crim. App.

2002)).

                                  III.   DISCUSSION

      The law is well settled that a party cannot object to the sufficiency of a

revocation motion for the first time on appeal. See, e.g., Vance v. State, 485 S.W.2d

580, 582 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972) (holding that objections to the sufficiency of the

revocation motion cannot be made for the first time on appeal and refusing to

consider the merits of appellant’s argument even when the court had concerns

regarding the sufficiency of the State’s motion). Here, the sole complaint in

appellant’s motion to quash was the court’s failure to consider appellant for early

release under code of criminal procedure article 42A.701. At the revocation hearing,

the trial court attempted to clarify whether appellant objected to anything within the

                                          –5–
State’s petition specifically, and in response, appellant’s counsel repeatedly returned

to the argument regarding appellant’s early release. Appellant did not assert to the

trial court, either in his Motion or in the subsequent hearing, that the contents of the

State’s petition were defective or insufficient. Nor did he argue, as he does on appeal,

that the petition failed to provide him notice “as to the manner and means of his

alleged violations of the terms and conditions of community supervision.”

      Appellant objected to the sufficiency of the State’s petition for the first time

on appeal. Consequently, he did not preserve this complaint for appellate review.

See Vance v. State, 485 S.W.2d at 582 (refusing to consider the sufficiency of the

revocation motion when urged for the first time on appeal).

                                 IV.    CONCLUSION

      We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                            /Maricela Breedlove/
                                            MARICELA BREEDLOVE
                                            JUSTICE

Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)

220371F.U05

                                          –6–
                                   S
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                 JUDGMENT

BRADLEY SHERMAN                              On Appeal from the 199th Judicial
HAYCRAFT, Appellant                          District Court, Collin County, Texas
                                             Trial Court Cause No. 199-83184-
No. 05-22-00371-CR          V.               2017.
                                             Opinion delivered by Justice
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                 Breedlove. Justices Molberg and
                                             Reichek participating.

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

Judgment entered March 1, 2023

                                       –7–