Charley James Hughes v. State ( 2012 )

NO. 07-12-0352-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL D
DECEMBER 14, 2012
___________________________________
CHARLIE JAMES HUGHES,
Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
___________________________________
FROM THE 100TH DISTRICT COURT OF CHILDRESS COUNTY;
NO. 5309; HON. STUART MESSER, PRESIDING
__________________________________
Opinion
__________________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.
Charlie James Hughes was convicted of felony driving while intoxicated and
sentenced to a term in prison. However, that sentence was suspended, and the trial
court placed him on community supervision for five years. Thereafter, the State moved
to revoke his community supervision, alleging that he violated the conditions of his
probation in multiple ways. Appellant pled “guilty” to each violation, which utterance
resulted in the court granting the motion, revoking his probation, and sentencing him to
prison. Now we are told that the “guilty” plea was insufficient evidence to support
revocation and that his procedural due process rights were denied him because the
court failed to “perform the legislatively mandated hearing on his financial ability to pay
for legal representation, supervision fees or court costs.” We affirm.
Issue One
Regarding the first matter, appellant suggests that because he uttered “guilty” as
opposed to “true” to the allegations in the State’s motion to revoke, the State was
obligated to tender evidence showing he violated the conditions of his probation. This is
purportedly so because pleading “guilty” somehow rendered applicable article 1.15 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure. We overrule the issue.
Article 1.15 provides that:
No person can be convicted of a felony except upon the verdict of a jury
duly rendered and recorded, unless the defendant, upon entering a plea,
has in open court in person waived his right of trial by jury in writing in
accordance with Articles 1.13 and 1.14; provided, however, that it shall be
necessary for the state to introduce evidence into the record showing the
guilt of the defendant and said evidence shall be accepted by the court as
the basis for its judgment and in no event shall a person charged be
convicted upon his plea without sufficient evidence to support the same.
The evidence may be stipulated if the defendant in such case consents in
writing, in open court, to waive the appearance, confrontation, and cross-
examination of witnesses, and further consents either to an oral stipulation
of the evidence and testimony or to the introduction of testimony by
affidavits, written statements of witnesses, and any other documentary
evidence in support of the judgment of the court. Such waiver and
consent must be approved by the court in writing, and be filed in the file of
the papers of the cause.
TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 1.15 (West 2005). This provision has been interpreted
to require the proffer of evidence, independent of a simple guilty plea, sufficient to
establish culpability. Stringer v. State, 241 S.W.3d 52, 58 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
However, it has been held to apply “where a felony-defendant waives the right to trial by
2
jury at the guilt stage” of the prosecution. Id. Appellant here was not at the guilt stage
of the prosecution when he uttered “guilty.” Indeed, his guilt had been adjudicated, and
he had been convicted of felony driving while intoxicated long before the State filed its
motion to deny him further probation. And, by filing its motion, the State was initiating
an administrative proceeding, Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim. App.
1993), not a "trial on the merits." Jones v. State, 728 S.W.2d 801, 803 (Tex. Crim. App.
1987). So, we reject the suggestion that article 1.15 required more of the State before
probation could be revoked.
It also is important to note that a plea of guilty actually constitutes an admission
to the accusation. Dees v. State, 676 S.W.2d 403, 404 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (stating
that a plea of guilty or nolo contendere admits each element of the offense charged in a
misdemeanor case); Martinez v. State, No. 13-05-095-CR, 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 105
(Tex. App.–Corpus Christi January 5, 2006, no pet.) (stating the same). Given that such
a plea is evidence of culpability outside the realm of the guilt stage of a felony
prosecution, we have little reason to vitiate it of evidentiary weight in an administration
hearing to determine whether a previously convicted individual should remain on
probation. So, appellant’s guilty plea was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s
decision.
Issue Two
As for the second issue, we overrule it as well. This is so because it does not
matter whether the trial court failed to investigate appellant’s financial ability to perform
those conditions of probation which carried with them some monetary obligation. Other
of the conditions which appellant admitted to violating had no such ties. For instance,
3
he failed to report as required and complete community service requirements. How his
purported lack of funds prevented him from complying with those duties went
unexplained. And it is not enough to simply conclude, as appellant did in his brief, that
“his ability to report and complete community supervision are all related to Appellant’s
indigency.” Indeed, it is quite conceivable that the impoverished may still gain access to
a free means of communication or a free means of travel and thereby satisfy the terms
of his probation. Whether appellant even tried that is unknown.
Because the trial court was empowered to revoke probation on any of the
grounds supported by the evidence, Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim.
App.1980), and the performance of some of those conditions was not necessarily
dependent upon appellant’s financial means, we cannot say that appellant was harmed
by the decision to revoke probation without his financial means being investigated first.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
Publish.
4