Shane Hankins v. State ( 2008 )

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

______________________________

No. 06-07-00201-CR ______________________________



SHANE HANKINS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

---

On Appeal from the 8th Judicial District Court Hopkins County, Texas Trial Court No. 0417804

---

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Moseley

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Shane Hankins appeals the trial court's order adjudicating his guilt and its sentencing of him to two years' confinement in a state-jail facility. We overrule Hankins's points of error and affirm the trial court's judgment.

Hankins was placed on community supervision on February 24, 2006, in two cases. In trial court cause number 0417804 (the instant case, our cause number 06-07-00201-CR), the trial court deferred a finding of guilt, but placed Hankins on community supervision for the offense of possession of a penalty group 1 controlled substance, in an amount of at least one gram but less than four grams. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115(c) (Vernon 2003). In trial court cause number 0417805, ⁽¹⁾ the trial court placed Hankins on community supervision for the state-jail felony of possession of marihuana in an amount of five pounds or less but more than four ounces. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.121(b)(3) (Vernon 2003). After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court made a general finding that "it is true . . . [Hankins] . . . violated [his] probation." ⁽²⁾ The trial court then adjudicated Hankins guilty in cause number 0417804 and sentenced him to two years' confinement in a state-jail facility. In cause number 0417805, the trial court modified the terms of community supervision, requiring that Hankins attend and complete a Substance Abuse Felony Program (SAFP) after he completed his state-jail sentence and, thereafter, remain on community supervision status for ten years.

Hankins raises several points of error, each of which complains there is factually insufficient evidence to support the trial court's findings and judgment. Hankins asserts there was factually insufficient evidence to support the trial court's findings that Hankins violated the terms of his community supervision by 1) acquiring a new criminal charge; 2) using heroin; 3) not reporting or performing his community service obligations; and 4) not paying his fees, fines, and other financial obligations.

We review the trial court's decision regarding community supervision revocation for an abuse of discretion and examine the evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court's order. Garrett v. State, 619 S.W.2d 172, 174 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1981); Pierce v. State, 113 S.W.3d 431, 436 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2003, pet. ref'd). To revoke community supervision, the State must prove every element of at least one ground for revocation by a preponderance of the evidence. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 21 (Vernon Supp. 2008); Moore v. State, 11 S.W.3d 495, 498 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.). The trial court holds very broad discretion over community supervision, its revocation, and its modification. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 21. Considering the unique nature of the revocation hearing and the trial court's broad discretion in the proceedings, the general standards for reviewing factual sufficiency do not apply. See Cochran v. State, 78 S.W.3d 20, 27 (Tex. App.--Tyler 2002, no pet.); Becker v. State, 33 S.W.3d 64, 66 (Tex. App.--El Paso 2000, no pet.). If the greater weight of credible evidence creates a reasonable belief a defendant has violated a condition of his or her community supervision, the trial court's order of revocation did not abuse its discretion and must be upheld. Scamardo v. State, 517 S.W.2d 293, 298 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974).

We begin by pointing out that at the hearing in the trial court, Hankins made three admissions, any one of which would have been sufficient to justify the revocation which was ordered.

(1) Hankins admitted that he had not reported to his community supervision officer for several months. This reporting was a condition of his community supervision.

(2) He admitted to knowing there was marihuana in his truck the night of his arrest, though he said the marihuana belonged to his girlfriend. Accordingly, he was knowingly present where criminal activity (possession of marihuana) was conducted.

(3) He argued at the hearing that the statement at trial that he had admitted using heroin three hours prior to a confrontation with police was incorrect; he maintained that he had used five days before the confrontation. Both the three-hour period and the five-day period were within the time after Hankins had been placed on community supervision. Use of the drug within either period could justify the revocation.

A trial court's finding the defendant has violated even one term of his community supervision is sufficient to support an order of revocation. See Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980). Accordingly, these three admissions alone were sufficient to provide the grounds for the revocation of the community supervision previously given; Hankins tangled himself up with his own tongue.

Although there was evidence provided at the time of the hearing that he had committed aggravated assault on a public servant, had possessed marihuana and other controlled substances in a drug-free zone, and had failed to pay his fees and charges (although claiming poverty prevented the payment) those offenses simply compound the already-sufficient grounds for a finding of "true" that Hankins had violated the terms of his community supervision. Therefore, since these would be simple redundancies, unnecessary to the trial court's determination, we will not engage in a reiteration of the facts surrounding them.

We overrule Hankins's points of error and affirm the trial court's judgment.

Bailey C. Moseley

Justice

Date Submitted: August 27, 2008

Date Decided: September 5, 2008

Do Not Publish

1. Please see our opinion in cause number 06-07-00202-CR.

2. The judgments also do not indicate specific violations; the judgments state, respectively, "While on community supervision, Defendant violated the terms and conditions of community supervision as set out in the State's ORIGINAL Motion to Adjudicate Guilt as follows: _____ . . . ." in cause number 06-07-00201-CR. And "The Court FINDS Defendant has violated the conditions of community supervision as set out in the State's ORIGINAL Motion to Revoke Community Supervision as follows: ________ . . . ." in cause number 06-07-00202-CR.