Court Opinion

ID: 9962218
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-23 11:09:04.529942+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:20:03.074674
License: Public Domain

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

                                      NO. 03-23-00389-CR

                                   Karen Lee Wade, Appellant

                                                 v.

                                  The State of Texas, Appellee

            FROM THE 368TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY
        NO. 18-2209-K368, THE HONORABLE SARAH SOELDNER BRUCHMILLER,
                                 JUDGE PRESIDING

                                           OPINION

               Karen Lee Wade appeals a judgment adjudicating guilt following the revocation

of her deferred adjudication probation. In her sole issue on appeal, she contends that the

evidence was legally insufficient to establish that she is the same Karen Lee Wade that was

placed on probation. Because the evidence in support of identity was legally sufficient, we

affirm the trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt.

                                         BACKGROUND

               In August 2019, Wade pleaded guilty to the first-degree felony of possession with

intent to deliver more than four grams but less than 200 grams of methamphetamine. See Tex.

Health & Safety Code § 481.112(a), (d). The trial court deferred adjudication of guilt and placed

her on seven years’ deferred adjudication probation pursuant to a plea agreement.
               On July 5, 2022, the State filed a motion to adjudicate, alleging various probation

violations. The specific violations are not at issue in this appeal. Rather, the sole issue is

whether the State sufficiently proved that Appellant is the same person who was placed on

deferred adjudication probation. On June 30, 2023, the trial court held an adjudication hearing.

The State called three witnesses.

               Kelly Garcia, who was a presentencing investigating officer for the trial court in

2019, testified that she had met with Wade three times prior to her sentencing in 2019 and that

one of those times included conducting a presentence interview. Garcia then identified Wade in

court. The State admitted documents of Wade’s agreed to conditions of probation through

Garcia, who had drafted them. Also admitted were a copy of the guilty plea documents and the

order of deferred adjudication documents associated with Wade’s underlying possession offense.

Garcia testified that the documents were from Wade’s case because they included her state

identification number, signature, and fingerprint.

               On cross-examination, Garcia admitted that she did not independently remember

Wade from 2019 but, rather, her in-court identification had been based on Wade “being the

defendant next to [defense counsel].” Defense counsel asked Garcia to clarify that she had “no

independent recollection, but just the fact that [Wade is] sitting here in open court and is wearing

a jumpsuit” was the source of her in-court identification, to which Garcia answered, “correct.”

               On redirect, Garcia stated that she had just remembered that prior to trial she

looked at a database that included Wade’s probation file and looked at her mugshot and that that

helped to refresh her recollection of what Wade looked like. On recross, Garcia clarified that her

testimony was that the person in court matched the photo in the probation file but that she did not

have any independent memory of Wade from conducting the interview back in 2019.

                                                 2
               Cathy Garza, a probation officer, testified that Wade was transferred from another

county to her probation caseload in October 2019 and that Garza continued as her probation

officer until April 2020. She testified that Wade reported to her monthly during that time, except

for in November, and explained that they met in person for the first five months and then by

phone for a couple more months. Garza also testified to how a probationer’s information gets

into their file. Specifically, she explained that directly after a defendant pleads guilty or is

sentenced a data sheet is created, which includes their contact information and date of birth. She

testified that the data sheet is included in the person’s probation file. The data sheet for “Karen

Wade” was then entered into evidence, which included a photo that Garza agreed was “an

accurate picture of the defendant as [Garza knew] her.” The data sheet also included Wade’s

state identification number matching the one on the order of deferred adjudication and probation

documents. Garza also testified that based on her notes in the probation file that she was the one

who took the photo of Wade in December 2019, although she did not have an independent

recollection of Wade’s appearance from that time. When asked by defense counsel if it was

possible that the person sitting in the courtroom was a different Karen Wade than the person

whom the probation file was for, Garza answered, “no.”

               Janie Serrato, a probation officer who took over Wade’s probation case from

Garza, testified regarding the alleged probation violations, including failure to report and failure

to complete required programs. Serrato never met Wade.

               Wade did not testify, but offered four exhibits that the trial court admitted, which

defense counsel described as “several documents that [Wade] has brought herself from her

prison trip and then from Dallas County. . . . They are not records that I have obtained, they’re

records that the defendant has.” Included in the admitted exhibits were copies of a collection of

                                                 3
court, arrest, and probation related documents, including documents from the underlying

possession case and resulting deferred adjudication probation.            Wade’s date of birth, state

identification number, and Social Security number—which match those on the probation data

sheet submitted by the State—were included throughout the documents submitted by Wade

including an arrest record document from March 2023.

               The trial court took judicial notice of the court’s file in the case. The court’s file

included an Affidavit of Financial Condition signed by Wade in March 2023 that listed her date

of birth and Social Security number, which were both consistent with the date of birth and Social

Security number on all the other documents presented in this case from both the State and Wade.

The State also offered, and the trial court admitted, a recent judgment adjudicating guilt from a

nearby county where she was sentenced to 24 months in TDCJ to be considered in sentencing if

probation were revoked.

               After hearing all the evidence, the trial court adjudicated guilt and sentenced

Wade to ten years’ imprisonment. Tex. Penal Code § 12.32(a) (setting punishment range for

first-degree felony at five to ninety-nine years or life imprisonment).

                                          DISCUSSION

               We review issues in probation revocation cases, including sufficiency issues, for

whether the trial court abused its discretion. See Hacker v. State, 389 S.W.3d 860, 865 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2013). In the probation revocation context, a trial court abuses its discretion if it

revokes probation when the State has failed to meet its burden of proof. Cardona v. State,

665 S.W.2d 492, 493–94 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). In a probation revocation hearing the State’s

burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence. Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 874 (Tex.

                                                 4
Crim. App. 1993). The State must meet its burden in proving both the identity of the defendant

as the probationer and that she violated the terms of the probation order. Id. A fact is proven by

a preponderance of the evidence if the greater weight of the credible evidence creates a

reasonable belief that it is true. See Hacker, 389 S.W.3d at 865. The trial court at a probation

revocation hearing “is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be

given to their testimony.” Id.

                 Here, Wade contends that the State did not introduce any evidence that identified

her as the same person who was placed on probation. Wade correctly points out that the trial

judge that heard Wade’s guilty plea is not the same judge that heard the State’s motion to

adjudicate guilt, that none of the witnesses testified that they independently identified Wade as

the same person who pleaded guilty, and that no expert testimony regarding fingerprints

was presented.

                 However, other credible evidence was presented.            See Flowers v. State,

220 S.W.3d 919, 921 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (“There is no ‘best evidence’ rule in Texas that

requires that the fact of a prior conviction be proven with any document, much less any specific

document.”). The trial court admitted Wade’s guilty plea, probation file, and recent arrest

records, which all contained matching identifiers including her full name, her date of birth, her

Social Security number, and her state identification number. Additionally, Garza testified that

the data sheet that is kept in the probation file is created directly after a person pleads guilty and

includes their contact information and date of birth. Further, the probation data sheet that was

admitted into evidence included a photo of Wade that her former probation officer, Garza,

testified she took at the second probation check-in that she had with Wade in December 2019.

Garza also responded, “no” when asked if it was possible that Wade was not the same person

                                                  5
that was on probation. Additionally, the documents that were offered by Wade and admitted also

contained the same identifying information as the State’s exhibits, including the same cause

number, name, date of birth, and state identification number.

               Based on the evidence of identity presented at the adjudication hearing, we

conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that the State met its

burden of proof when the greater weight of the credible evidence created a reasonable belief that

Wade was the person placed on deferred adjudication probation in 2019 for the underlying

offense. See Hacker, 389 S.W.3d at 865 (explaining standard for determining if State established

identity by preponderance of evidence and explaining that standard of review is abuse of

discretion when reviewing legal sufficiency of probation revocation); see also Montiel v. State,

No. 03-19-00405-CR, 2021 WL 2021142, at *8 (Tex. App.—Austin May 21, 2021, no pet.)

(mem. op., not designated for publication) (explaining that “[l]inks to the defendant can be

shown through different means, including allowing the jury to compare photographs with the

appearance of the defendant at trial or compare identifying information such as names, sexes,

heights, eye colors, and dates of birth”) (citing Williams v. State, 946 S.W.2d 886, 895 (Tex.

App.—Waco 1997, no pet.)). Thus, we overrule Wade’s sole issue.

                                        CONCLUSION

               Because we overrule Wade’s sole issue, we affirm the trial court’s judgment

adjudicating guilt.

                                             __________________________________________
                                             Gisela D. Triana, Justice

                                                6
Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Kelly

Affirmed

Filed: April 19, 2024

                                               7