Criminal Cases decided by the 5th Court of Appeals on July 7, 2017

The 5th Court of Appeals decided JACOBY TAYLOR, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee, on July 7, 2017.

The Court issued a memorandum opinion affirming Appellant’s conviction for Aggravated Robbery.

The case was on appeal from the 195th Judicial District Court in Dallas County, Texas, as Trial Court Cause No. F07-52952-N.

From the court:

Appellant Jacoby Taylor appeals his conviction for the offense of aggravated robbery causing bodily injury while using or exhibiting a firearm. Appellant waived a jury trial and entered a negotiated guilty plea before the court. Pursuant to that plea agreement, the trial court deferred adjudication of guilt and placed appellant on probation for ten years and assessed a $2,000 fine. Subsequently, the State moved to proceed with an adjudication of guilt, claiming appellant had violated conditions of community supervision. At the revocation hearing, appellant pled true to the alleged probation violations. The trial court accepted appellant’s plea of true, adjudicated appellant guilty, and assessed punishment at ten years’ confinement. In two issues, appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to prove he violated the conditions of his community supervision as alleged by the State.

Appellant pled true and judicially confessed and stipulated he violated two of the conditions of his community supervision by possessing a controlled substance greater than one gram and failing to complete a BIPP class. A plea of true to an allegation that a defendant has violated a condition of his community supervision is sufficient to support the revocation of community supervision and adjudicate guilt. Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979). Further, during the evidentiary hearing, the State called two police officers and a probation officer who testified to each of the two allegations contained in the motion. See Parker v. State, No. 05-13-01535-CR, 2014 WL 7497800, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec. 29, 2014, no pet.)(not designated for publication) (citing Barfield v. State, 63 S.W.3d 446, 451 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (probation revocation hearings are unitary proceedings, which means the decision of the trial court is not fixed until it renders judgment on guilt and punishment after all the evidence and arguments have been heard)).

In this case, the trial court revoked appellant’s community supervision because he pled true to the State’s allegation that he committed an offense by possessing a controlled substance greater than one gram and failed to complete a BIPP class and because the State called witnesses during the evidentiary hearing who testified to the allegations contained in the motion to proceed with an adjudication of guilt. Appellant’s written voluntary pleas of true to violating conditions of his community supervision and judicial confession and stipulation of evidence, and the evidence offered during the hearing, are sufficient to prove appellant violated the conditions of his community supervision. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding appellant guilty and assessing a ten year sentence. We overrule appellant’s issues.


LEGAL TERMS OF USE & DISCLAIMER
This article is for entertainment and informational purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice or create an client-lawyer relationship among any individuals or entities. All views expressed in this article or at the linked web pages are those of the responsible writer on a particular date, and should not necessarily be attributed to this writer, his law firm, or its clients. NOTHING IN THIS WEBSITE CONSTITUTES LEGAL ADVICE, and the information contained herein should never be used as a substitute for consulting a lawyer. No warranty is made as to the thoroughness or accuracy of any content. Users of this site release and hold harmless all individuals and entities who author articles on this site for any information collected regarding visitors to this site as well as for any other harm resulting from visitors' use of this site. The views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the author, or of the author's clients.

Criminal Cases decided by the 5th Court of Appeals on July 7, 2017 – The Dallas Lawyer