Brian Bradford v. State

COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-16-00421-CR
BRIAN BRADFORD APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM THE 431ST DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY
TRIAL COURT NO. F-2014-1621-F
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
After placing appellant Brian Bradford on community supervision, the trial
court revoked the community supervision and adjudicated his guilt for continuous
violence against a member of his family, a third-degree felony.2 In two related
issues on appeal, Bradford argues that the trial court abused its discretion by
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2
See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 25.11(a), (e) (West 2011).
revoking the community supervision based on a finding that he committed a new
offense. We conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support revocation, and
we therefore affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Background
A grand jury indicted Bradford with continuous violence against a member
of his family. The indictment alleged that during a period of less than twelve
months, he had assaulted his wife G.B. (Gina)3 on three occasions.
Bradford pleaded guilty. The trial court deferred adjudication of his guilt
and placed him on community supervision. Among other conditions of the
community supervision, the trial court ordered him to commit no further offenses.
Less than a year after Bradford began his community supervision, the
State filed a motion asking the trial court to adjudicate his guilt. The State
alleged that he had committed new offenses by twice assaulting Gina. Bradford
pleaded not true to these allegations. The trial court held a hearing on the
State’s motion, received the parties’ evidence and arguments, and found the
State’s allegations true. After hearing further testimony, the court revoked
Bradford’s community supervision, adjudicated his guilt, and sentenced him to
eight years’ confinement. He brought this appeal.
To protect G.B.’s anonymity, we use an alias. See McClendon v. State,
3
643 S.W.2d 936, 936 n.1 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1982).
2
The Trial Court’s Revocation Decision
On appeal, Bradford contends that the trial court abused its discretion by
revoking his community supervision based on the court’s finding that he violated
a condition by committing two assaults. We review a trial court’s decision to
revoke community supervision for an abuse of discretion. Leonard v. State, 385
S.W.3d 570, 576 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (op. on reh’g). In a revocation
proceeding, the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the
defendant violated at least one term of community supervision. See id.; Powe v.
State, 436 S.W.3d 91, 93 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2014, pet. ref’d) (“Proof of a
violation of a single condition is sufficient to support a trial court’s decision to
revoke probation.”). The trial court is the sole judge of the credibility of the
witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony, and we review the
evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's revocation ruling. Garrett
v. State, 619 S.W.2d 172, 174 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1981); Clay v. State,
361 S.W.3d 762, 765 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012, no pet.). The trial court is
free to accept or reject all or part of the testimony of any witness. Miles v. State,
343 S.W.3d 908, 913–14 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2011, no pet.) (“Although there
are inconsistencies in the testimony by Rojo, Fernandez, and Rodriguez, the
inconsistencies raise credibility issues for the trial court as factfinder, and the trial
court was free to accept or reject any or all of the witnesses’ testimony.”).
The State’s motion for the trial court to adjudicate Bradford’s guilt alleged
that he had violated a condition of his community supervision by committing an
3
assault against Gina in January 2016 and again in February 2016. See Tex.
Penal Code Ann. § 22.01(a)(1) (West Supp. 2017) (providing the elements of
assault causing bodily injury); see also id. § 1.07(a)(8) (West Supp. 2017)
(defining “bodily injury”); Laster v. State, 275 S.W.3d 512, 524 (Tex. Crim. App.
2009) (“Direct evidence that a victim suffered pain is sufficient to show bodily
injury.”). Specifically, the motion alleged that in January 2016, Bradford had
caused bodily injury to Gina by putting his hands around her neck, and that in
February 2016, he had caused bodily injury to her by slamming a door on her
fingers and on her wrist. We will summarize the evidence concerning these
allegations below.
Gina’s testimony
Gina, Bradford’s wife at the time of the alleged assaults and his ex-wife at
the time of the revocation hearing, testified that one night in January 2016, they
began to argue with each other. Bradford became angry, and he “grabbed [Gina]
by [her] neck and choked [her].” After Bradford “choked [her] pretty hard,” he
“dropped [her] and left the room.” Although Gina did not pass out, her breathing
was restricted for a short time. Gina took photographs of her neck and sent them
to her sister through text messages.4 According to Gina, Bradford’s assault
produced bruises on her neck and a bruise on her shoulder. The photographs
4
The trial court admitted copies of these photographs. Gina’s sister
testified and confirmed that Gina had sent the photographs to her.
4
show red marks on her neck. She did not call the police because she was
scared of how Bradford would respond.
On another occasion, in February 2016,5 Bradford became angry at Gina
because she was sending text messages from her phone. Bradford took the
phone from Gina, and when she followed him while attempting to retrieve the
phone, he “slammed [her] hand in [a] door multiple times.” According to Gina,
the assault fractured her hand. As results of the assault, she required surgery
and, at the time of the revocation hearing, one of her fingers would not bend.
On cross-examination, Gina conceded that she has taken medicine to treat
mental health issues and that she drinks alcohol, including doing so on the day of
the February 2016 incident. She also testified that concerning that incident, she
had previously told a detective that she thought that Bradford’s slamming her
hand in the door was an accident. She testified that she had originally so
claimed because she was attempting to “cover” for him and because she feared
him.6
5
During her testimony, Gina was initially mistaken about which incident
occurred in which month.
6
A deputy who met with Gina after this incident testified that victims of
domestic violence commonly hide the truth about assaults. He admitted that on
the night of the incident, Gina told him that her hand had been accidentally
caught in a door when Bradford had attempted to close it. Based on Gina and
Bradford’s agreement that night that the injury to Gina’s hand was accidental, the
deputy concluded at that time that no assault had occurred.
5
Michelle Haiduk’s testimony
Michelle Haiduk, an investigator with the Denton County Sheriff’s Office,
testified that following the February 2016 incident, she began investigating that
incident along with the incident that had occurred the prior month. Haiduk spoke
with Gina and members of Gina’s family but did not speak with Bradford because
Gina had led Haiduk to believe that Haiduk’s contacting Bradford “would possibly
cause [Gina] further harm.” Haiduk testified that she had wanted to speak to
Bradford but that “safety is the number one concern . . . in cases of domestic
violence” and that “[Gina had] led [her] to believe that [Gina’s] safety would be in
danger.” Based on Haiduk’s referral to a grand jury, the grand jury indicted
Bradford for both of the incidents.
Haiduk conceded that an x-ray of Gina’s hand did not reveal an “acute
fracture” and showed only that her pinky may have had a “chronic fracture.”7
Thus, Haiduk recognized that Gina’s statement that she had sustained a fracture
to her hand in the February 2016 incident was not true. Haiduk also admitted
that while the photographs from the January 2016 incident showed redness on
Gina’s neck, she had no personal knowledge about what caused the redness.
7
The same medical record that reveals these facts also describes Gina’s
“[d]iagnosis” as “AS[S]AULTED” and describes her “[d]ifferential [d]iagnosis” as
“[h]and contusion, hand fracture, wrist fracture.”
6
Bradford’s testimony
In his testimony, Bradford denied assaulting Gina in January 2016 or in
February 2016. He testified that Gina had consumed several alcoholic drinks on
the night of the January 2016 incident, that she had attempted to start an
argument with him that night, and that he had avoided the argument while locking
himself in a room away from her and falling asleep. Bradford testified that on that
night, Gina had taken hinges off a door in an attempt to get to him. He denied
that he had any negative contact with Gina that evening.
Concerning the February 2016 incident, Bradford testified that Gina had
again drunk alcohol and that she had again attempted to start an argument with
him. According to Bradford, in an attempt to avoid confrontation, he tried to shut
himself in a bathroom closet. Without knowing that Gina was present, when he
attempted to shut the closet’s door, he accidentally shut her hand in the door. He
then left the house to avoid any further confrontation.
Analysis
Bradford argues that we should “set aside the finding of true that [he]
committed a new offense of assault . . . as the State did not prove by a
preponderance of evidence that [he] intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly
caused bodily injury to [Gina].” In presenting this argument, Bradford frames the
evidence from his perspective. Specifically, relying on his testimony, he argues
that the February 2016 incident was an accident because he did not know that
Gina was present when he shut the closet’s door. Concerning the January 2016
7
incident, he contends that no reasonable factfinder could have believed Gina’s
testimony because her “character for truthfulness was questionable” and
because the photographs that the trial court admitted did not adequately
corroborate Gina’s testimony.
We acknowledge that the record contains facts and inferences drawn from
Gina’s, Haiduk’s, and Bradford’s testimony that a hypothetical factfinder could
have weighed against a finding in favor of the allegations in the State’s motion to
adjudicate. But the trial court’s finding of true to the allegations implies that it
rejected those facts and inferences and accepted facts and inferences supporting
the finding. We must defer to the trial court’s implied resolution of conflicting
evidence in favor of its findings of true. See Colbert v. State, Nos. 02-13-00382-
CR, 02-13-00383-CR, 2014 WL 1257390, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Mar. 27,
2014, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
Gina’s testimony, which the trial court had the authority to accept and rely
on—see Miles, 343 S.W.3d at 913–14—shows that during the January 2016
incident, Bradford, after verbally arguing with Gina, grabbed her neck with both of
his hands and choked her “pretty hard.” The choking impeded Gina’s breathing
and left red marks on her neck, of which she took photographs. Gina’s testimony
also shows that during the February 2016 incident, after Bradford took her phone
and after she attempted to retrieve it, he slammed her hand in a door “multiple
times,” requiring surgery and resulting in the impaired function of a finger.
8
Viewing these facts and the remaining evidence in the light most favorable
to the trial court’s decision, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion
by finding the State’s allegations true, by revoking Bradford’s community
supervision, and by adjudicating his guilt. See Leonard, 385 S.W.3d at 576;
Garrett, 619 S.W.2d at 174. We overrule both of Bradford’s issues.
Conclusion
Having overruled Bradford’s two issues, we affirm the trial court’s
judgment.
/s/ Wade Birdwell
WADE BIRDWELL
JUSTICE
PANEL: GABRIEL, PITTMAN, and BIRDWELL, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: December 28, 2017
9