Jeffrey Aaron Brinson v. the State of Texas ( 2024 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-24-00014-CR
No. 07-24-00015-CR
JEFFREY AARON BRINSON, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 100th District Court
Childress County, Texas
Trial Court Nos. 6575 & 6764, Honorable Dale A. Rabe, Presiding
October 7, 2024
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ.
Jeffrey Aaron Brinson appeals from the trial court’s two judgments. Through that
entered in Cause No. 6575, the trial court revoked his community supervision, adjudicated
him guilty of assault by impeding breathing, and sentenced him to 50 years imprisonment.
Through Cause No. 6764, it adjudicated his guilt for assault family violence and imposed
a 15-year prison term. He attacks each conviction via two issues, namely the sufficiency
of the evidence illustrating conditions of probation were violated and the propriety of
ordering the sentences to run consecutively. We affirm.
Background
In April 2022, appellant pleaded guilty to both crimes for which he was ultimately
convicted. However, the trial court deferred the adjudication of his guilt in each cause
and placed him on community supervision. The State subsequently moved to adjudicate
guilt in each cause, averring multiple ways in which he violated the terms of his probation.
Upon convening separate evidentiary hearings in each case, the court found appellant
had violated several conditions of probation, granted the motions to revoke, adjudicated
appellant guilty of the respective crimes, and ultimately sentenced him as mentioned
earlier. So too did it stack appellant’s ensuing sentences.
Issues One, Two, and Three—Sufficiency of the Evidence
By his first three issues, appellant argues the trial court erred in adjudicating his
guilt since the State failed to prove he violated any condition of probation. We overrule
the issues.
When reviewing an order revoking community supervision, the sole question
before this court is whether the trial court abused its discretion. Hacker v. State, 389
S.W.3d 860, 865 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). Next, a single violation of community
supervision is sufficient to support revocation. Garcia v. State, 387 S.W.3d 20, 26 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2012). So, to prevail on appeal, the appellant must successfully challenge all
findings that support the revocation order. Sharp v. State, No. 07-19-00409-CR, 2020
Tex. App. LEXIS 7124, at *6 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Sep. 2, 2020, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not
designated for publication). Garcia v. State, No. 02-15-00138-CR, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS
716, at *3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Jan. 26, 2017, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for
2
publication); Black v. State, 411 S.W.3d 25, 28 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no
pet.).
Appellant did not challenge on appeal the trial court’s finding in Cause No. 6575
that he failed to complete his community service hours. Nor did he here contest the
finding in Cause No. 6764 that he failed to complete drug evaluations as ordered. Having
failed to challenge every finding underlying each decision to revoke community
supervision, appellant fell short of carrying his appellate burden described in Sharp.
Issue Four—Consecutive Sentences
Through his last issue, appellant argues the trial court erred in ordering his
sentences to run consecutively. That resulted in a grossly disproportionate sentence,
allegedly. We overrule the issue.
Though appellant originally moved for the sentences to run concurrently, he
eventually uttered, though legal counsel: “I would ask the Court to run these sentences
consecutively.” (Emphasis added). This came during his argument at the sentencing
hearing in Cause No. 6764. The trial court apparently acquiesced by ordering the
sentence in 6764 begin after that levied in 6575 ended. Because appellant invited the
sentence received, he cannot now complain of it. Sharp v. State, 210 S.W.3d 835, 838
(Tex. App.—Amarillo 2006, no pet.).
Moreover, an analysis of the circumstances at bar under the standard we
described in Chappell v. State, Nos. 07-17-00151-CR, 07-17-00299-CR, 2018 Tex. App.
LEXIS 882, at *16 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Jan. 31, 2018, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not
designated for publication) leads us to conclude that stacking the sentences did not
render the sentence grossly disproportionate. The criminal acts involved two different
3
instances of assault. So too had he previously been convicted of aggravated assault with
a deadly weapon. Stacked sentences obligating appellant to serve 65 years in prison
after committing three independent violent felonies does not evince that rare instance of
gross disproportionality. See Stevens v. State, 667 S.W.2d 534, 538 (Tex. Crim. App.
1984) (observing that the cumulation of sentences does not constitute cruel and unusual
punishment).
Having overruled each of appellant’s issues, we affirm the judgments of the trial
court.
Brian Quinn
Chief Justice
Do not publish.
4