Court Opinion

ID: 9909375
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-13 10:09:39.774111+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:11.219401
License: Public Domain

In the
              Court of Appeals
Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

                   No. 06-23-00144-CR

         AARON ROSS EPPERSON, Appellant

                            V.

           THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

         On Appeal from the 115th District Court
                Marion County, Texas
                Trial Court No. F15097

      Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.
      Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Stevens
                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION

        Aaron Ross Epperson pled guilty to aggravated assault of a public servant, a first-degree

felony. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.02(b)(2)(B) (Supp.). Pursuant to a plea-bargain

agreement with the State, Epperson was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision

for ten years. The terms and conditions of Epperson’s community supervision required him to,

among other things, refrain from committing another crime. The State alleged that Epperson had

committed the new offense of attempted burglary of a habitation and filed a motion to adjudicate

Epperson’s guilt. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found the State’s allegation true,

adjudicated Epperson’s guilt, and sentenced him to thirty years’ imprisonment.

        On appeal, Epperson argues that the evidence was legally insufficient to prove that he

had violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision by committing attempted

burglary of a habitation.1 Because we find that sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s

decision to adjudicate Epperson’s guilt, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

I.      Sufficient Evidence Supported the Trial Court’s Finding that Epperson Violated a
        Term and Condition of His Deferred Adjudication Community Supervision

        A.      Evidence at the Hearing

        Testimony at the hearing showed that Epperson suffered from the effects of

methamphetamine use. Alisha Smith testified that she and her husband had known Epperson for

many years and lived within a few blocks of him. Smith testified that her husband “knew the

nature of, you know, his substance abuse and really just tried to help him,” sometimes by giving

1
 In companion cause number 06-23-00145-CR, Epperson appeals his conviction for evading arrest with a motor
vehicle.
                                                    2
him money. Smith said she became uncomfortable with Epperson’s behavior and instructed her

husband not to allow “[Epperson] back over at the house.”

       On the day of the incident, Smith was home alone. She testified that she was asleep on

the couch when she heard a noise around 9:00 a.m., woke up to her dog barking, and “saw a

shadow” in the backyard through the window blinds. When Smith investigated, she saw that

Epperson had breached the closed gates of her backyard chain-link fence and was standing at the

back door with his hand on the doorknob. According to Smith, Epperson was wearing a blue and

white glove, was carrying a “Walmart sack,” and was hiding something behind his back, which

she could not see. She testified that she asked Epperson what he was doing there and that

Epperson did not answer the question. Smith said that neither she nor her husband had given

Epperson permission to be on their property and believed that Epperson was there to break into

their house. Smith said she was in shock and called the police after Epperson abided by her

request to leave.

       Benjamin Wilson, a sergeant with the Jefferson Police Department, responded to Smith’s

call with Officer David Lowrance. Wilson and Lowrance went to Epperson’s house and talked

to him while Epperson held a glove in his hand. According to Wilson, “[Epperson] seemed a

little bit nervous” and said he was at Smith’s home to check on her. Lowrance testified that

Epperson’s excuse did not explain why he had breached the backyard fence and opined that

Epperson had attempted to burglarize Smith’s home.

       Epperson admitted that he had gone to Smith’s home on the day of the incident but

claimed it was to obtain help to unlock a cellphone he had purchased at Walmart. Epperson said

                                              3
he went to the backyard instead of the front door because he “thought [he] heard [the Smiths] in

the back.” Epperson also claimed that he had knocked on the back door. When asked why he

was wearing a glove on the day of the incident, Epperson said that he liked to wear gloves and

considered them “like [his] little Michael Jackson swag.”

       After Epperson testified, Smith said she had never seen Epperson wear a glove before the

incident. She also said that Epperson did not ask for help with a cellphone.

       B.      Standard of Review

       “The decision to proceed to an adjudication of guilt and revoke deferred adjudication

community supervision is reviewable in the same manner as a revocation of ordinary community

supervision.” Lawrence v. State, 420 S.W.3d 329, 331 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2014, pet.

ref’d). “We review an order revoking community supervision under an abuse of discretion

standard.” Id. (citing Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Cardona v.

State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984)). “In a revocation proceeding, the State

must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated at least one of the

terms and conditions of community supervision.” Id. (citing Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871,

873–74 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993)). “The trial court is the sole judge of the credibility of the

witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony, and we review the evidence in the light

most favorable to the trial court’s ruling.” Id. (citing Cardona, 665 S.W.2d at 493; Garrett v.

State, 619 S.W.2d 172, 174 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1981)). “If the State fails to meet its

burden of proof, the trial court abuses its discretion in revoking the community supervision.” Id.

(citing Cardona, 665 S.W.2d at 493–94).

                                                4
         C.       Analysis

         “Proof of any one violation” by a preponderance of the evidence “is sufficient to support”

a trial court’s decision to revoke community supervision and adjudicate guilt. Dansby v. State,

468 S.W.3d 225, 231 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2015, no pet.). Epperson argues that the evidence was

insufficient to support the trial court’s finding that he violated the terms and conditions of his

deferred adjudication community supervision by committing a new crime. We disagree.2

         A person commits the offense of burglary if, without the effective consent of the owner,

the person “enters a habitation, or a building (or any portion of a building) not then open to the

public, with intent to commit a felony, theft, or an assault.” TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 30.02. “A

person commits an offense if, with specific intent to commit an offense, he does an act

amounting to more than mere preparation that tends but fails to effect the commission of the

offense intended.” TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 15.01. “The necessary specific intent can be

proven through circumstantial evidence, and we may rely on events that took place before,

during, or after the commission of the offense.” Cary v. State, 507 S.W.3d 750, 758 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2016); see Metcalf v. State, 597 S.W.3d 847, 856 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020) (“In assaying the

record for evidence of intent, we look to ‘events before, during and after the commission of the

offense.’” (quoting Wygal v. State, 555 S.W.2d 465, 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977))).

         Here, the evidence showed that Epperson was known to use methamphetamine, had

received money from Smith’s husband in the past, but was no longer welcome at the Smiths’

2
 By a second point of error, Epperson also argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the State’s failure-to-
pay allegations in its revocation motion. Because we determine that sufficient evidence supported the finding that
Epperson attempted to burglarize a habitation, we need not address Epperson’s second point.
                                                          5
home. While Smith’s husband was away, Epperson breached the Smiths’ backyard fence and

was at the backdoor without her permission. Although Epperson had not yet entered the home,

Smith said that she saw Epperson’s hand on the doorknob. Smith testified that Epperson was

wearing a glove, carrying a Walmart sack, and hiding something behind his back. When she

asked Epperson what he was doing at her home, Epperson did not answer. Even so, he told

officers that he went to check on Smith but then testified that he was there to get assistance with

a cellphone. Based on this inconsistent testimony, the trial court could have determined that

Smith lied to the officers investigating the incident, which indicated guilt. The trial court could

have also determined that Epperson was wearing a glove, not as “Michael Jackson swag” but to

hide fingerprint evidence, and that he was holding a bag to assist in carrying items he hoped to

take from the home. As a result, the placement of his hand on the doorknob was an act

amounting to more than mere preparation that tended, but failed, to effect the commission of

burglary of a habitation.

       Based on the totality of the circumstances, we find that a preponderance of the evidence

established that Epperson violated the terms and conditions of his deferred adjudication

community supervision by attempting to enter the Smiths’ home with the intent to commit theft.

As a result, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to adjudicate Epperson’s

guilt. We overrule Epperson’s points of error.

                                                 6
II.   Conclusion

      We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

                                              Scott E. Stevens
                                              Chief Justice

Date Submitted:      November 27, 2023
Date Decided:        December 8, 2023

Do Not Publish

                                                 7