John Reynolds v. State ( 2013 )


Menu:
  • AFFIRM; Opinion Filed May 6, 2013.
    In The
    Court of Appeals
    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
    No. 05-12-01707-CR
    No. 05-12-01708-CR
    JOHN RICHARD REYNOLDS, Appellant
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
    On Appeal from the County Court at Law
    Rockwall County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause Nos. CR11-1548, CR11-1549
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Before Justices Lang, Myers, and Evans
    Opinion by Justice Lang
    John Richard Reynolds appeals from the revocation of his community supervision in
    these cases. In a single issue, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion by revoking
    his community supervision. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. The background of the case
    and the evidence admitted at trial are well known to the parties, and we therefore limit recitation
    of the facts. We issue this memorandum opinion pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure
    47.4 because the law to be applied in the case is well settled.
    Appellant waived a jury and pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana in an amount less
    than two ounces and possession of alprazolam in an amount less than twenty-eight grams. TEX.
    HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. §§ 481.117(a), (b), 481.121(a), (b)(1) (West 2010). Pursuant to
    plea agreements, the trial court assessed punishment at 180 days’ confinement in the county jail,
    probated fifteen months, and fines of $300 and $400, respectively. The State later moved to
    revoke appellant’s community supervision, alleging appellant violated the conditions of
    community supervision by committing two new offenses: possessing less than one gram of
    methamphetamine and resisting arrest. Appellant pleaded not true to the allegations in a hearing
    on the motions.
    Forney police officer Mark Atkinson testified Debra Tallas, appellant’s mother, called
    911 and said appellant was in his room with a gun. When Atkinson and three other officers
    arrived at the location, Tallas was outside the house “in a frantic” state. Atkinson testified Tallas
    gave him permission to enter the house and make contact with appellant. Tallas wanted the
    officers to secure the weapon and she appeared “very concerned” about a weapon. The officers
    opened the front door, identified themselves as officers, and yelled for appellant to come outside.
    Appellant initially refused to come outside, but the officers coaxed him to come out onto the
    front porch. Atkinson testified he attempted to handcuff appellant, for both appellant’s safety
    and the officers’ safety, because Tallas had reported seeing a firearm. Appellant pulled away
    from Atkinson and started fighting. Another officer deployed his Taser and subdued appellant.
    Atkinson searched appellant for weapons, but he found only a pocket knife on appellant’s
    person. Atkinson testified that when he searched appellant’s room, he only found the barrel of a
    shotgun.
    -2-
    Officer Matthew Hutchins testified he responded to Tallas’s house because she had called
    911 and said appellant was in his bedroom with a shotgun in his mouth. When Hutchins and
    other officers arrived at the house, Tallas came outside and said appellant was in his bedroom.
    Hutchins testified the officers stood at the front door and commanded appellant to come outside.
    Appellant initially refused, but he eventually came outside after multiple commands. When an
    officer tried to take appellant into protective custody by cuffing appellant’s hands, appellant
    began struggling. Hutchins testified he ordered another officer to apply his Taser to appellant.
    After handcuffing appellant, Hutchins went into the house and looked for the shotgun. Hutchins
    testified that as soon as he entered appellant’s bedroom, he saw drug paraphernalia used to
    smoke or inject methamphetamine scattered throughout the room in plain view.            Hutchins
    searched appellant’s room and eventually found a shotgun barrel in the closet. Hutchins testified
    he found hypodermic needles on the floor by a dresser and a “piece of metal” that had a melted
    substance on it. Later analysis showed the substance was methamphetamine.
    Debra Tallas testified that she had called the police because appellant was attempting
    suicide and was “incoherent” to her.      Tallas testified she heard appellant yelling on the
    telephone. When she went into his room, she saw appellant with a shotgun in his mouth. Tallas
    testified she did not remember whether she gave officers consent to go inside the house, and she
    did not remember if anyone asked her for permission to enter the house.
    The trial court granted the State’s motions, revoked appellant’s community supervision,
    and assessed punishment in each case at 180 days’ confinement in the county jail.
    Appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his community
    supervision because the evidence is insufficient to show he committed two new offenses.
    Appellant asserts the evidence of possession of methamphetamine was illegally obtained from
    -3-
    the residence, and nothing shows he knowingly or intentionally possessed it. He further asserts
    the evidence was insufficient to show he resisted arrest because the officers were not attempting
    to arrest appellant but instead were concerned only with safety issues.
    Appellate review of an order revoking community supervision is limited to determining
    whether the trial court abused its discretion. See Rickels v. State, 
    202 S.W.3d 759
    , 763 (Tex.
    Crim. App. 2006).      An order revoking community supervision must be supported by a
    preponderance of the evidence, meaning the greater weight of the credible evidence that would
    create a reasonable belief that the defendant has violated a condition of probation. 
    Id. at 763–64.
    In conducting a sufficiency review, a reviewing court considers all evidence, whether properly or
    improperly admitted at trial, that the fact-finder was permitted to consider. See Moff v. State, 
    131 S.W.3d 485
    , 488–89 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004).
    Hutchins testified the officers had the consent of Tallas to go into the house. Hutchins
    saw the methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia in plain view when he entered appellant’s
    bedroom. The trial judge was free to accept or reject any and all of the evidence presented by
    either side. See Dewberry v. State, 
    4 S.W.3d 735
    , 740 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Viewing the
    evidence under the appropriate standard, we conclude it is sufficient to support the trial court’s
    finding that appellant committed the new offense of possession of methamphetamine. Thus, the
    evidence is sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that appellant violated the condition of
    his community supervision. Proof of one violation is sufficient to support the revocation. See
    Sanchez v. State, 
    603 S.W.2d 869
    , 871 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980. Therefore, we
    conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking appellant’s community
    supervision in each case. See 
    Rickels, 202 S.W.3d at 763
    ; 
    Sanchez, 603 S.W.2d at 871
    . We
    resolve appellant’s sole issue against him.
    -4-
    We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
    /Douglas S. Lang/
    DOUGLAS S. LANG
    JUSTICE
    Do Not Publish
    TEX. R. APP. P. 47
    121707F.U05
    -5-
    Court of Appeals
    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
    JUDGMENT
    JOHN RICHARD REYNOLDS,                            Appeal from the County Court at Law
    Appellant                                         of Rockwall County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No.
    CR-1548).
    No. 05-12-01707-CR       V.                       Opinion delivered by Justice Lang, Justices
    Myers and Evans participating.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
    Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
    Judgment entered May 6, 2013.
    /Douglas S. Lang
    DOUGLAS S. LANG
    JUSTICE
    -6-
    Court of Appeals
    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
    JUDGMENT
    JOHN RICHARD REYNOLDS,                            Appeal from the County Court at Law
    Appellant                                         of Rockwall County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No.
    CR-1549).
    No. 05-12-01708-CR       V.                       Opinion delivered by Justice Lang, Justices
    Myers and Evans participating.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
    Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
    Judgment entered May 6, 2013.
    /Douglas S. Lang/
    DOUGLAS S. LANG
    JUSTICE
    -7-