Anthony L. Baldwin v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 227th Judicial District Court of Bexar County
Anthony L. BALDWIN a/k/a Anthony Seay,
The STATE Of Texas,
From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2001-CR-4506B
Honorable Philip A. Kazen, Jr., Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice
Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice
Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
Delivered and Filed: July 18, 2007
In a single point of error, Anthony Baldwin challenges the trial court's revocation of his probation, asserting a denial of his constitutional right of freedom to associate and an absence of proof that he failed to attend Alcoholic Anonymous meetings. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In 2002, Baldwin was placed on deferred adjudication for theft from a person. Approximately three years later, the State filed a motion to revoke alleging Baldwin violated numerous conditions of his deferred adjudication. Baldwin entered a plea of "true" to several violations. The court granted the State's motion and sentenced Baldwin to two years confinement and a fine of $2,000.00. Baldwin subsequently filed a motion for community supervision, which was granted by the trial court on October 4, 2005. Baldwin signed and acknowledged the terms and conditions of his new probation that included in part:
1. Neither commit nor be convicted of any offense against the Laws of the State of Texas . . .
* * *
15. Beginning 10/4/05, report to and apply for
drug/alcohol/psychological/sexual/batters [sic]/tuberculosis counseling, treatment diagnostic evaluation, and/or intervention with:
* * *
E. ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS (AA), Location to be determined by defendant . . .
On January 24, 2006, the State filed a motion to revoke alleging Baldwin had "committed the offense of Violated Protective Order - 2 Priors/Assaults" and failed to "Provide Proof of AA Attendance." (1) At the hearing on the motion, Baldwin entered a plea of "not true" to both allegations. After receiving testimony from several witnesses, (2) the trial court found Baldwin violated both conditions and sentenced him to two years in the state jail facility. Baldwin then perfected this appeal.
The State must prove the allegations in a motion to revoke by a preponderance of the evidence. Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). The judge determines the facts and is empowered to make credibility determinations as the sole fact-finder. Garrett v. State, 619 S.W.2d 172, 174 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1981). On appeal, we review the trial judge's decision under an abuse of discretion standard but indulge all inferences in favor of the court's ruling. Jackson v. State, 645 S.W.2d 303, 305 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983). Where more than one violation of the conditions of probation is found, the trial court's judgment will be sustained if proof of any one violation is sufficient. Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980).
Baldwin complains the State's evidence was insufficient to support either alleged violation of probation. Because we find there was evidence to support the trial court's finding that Baldwin violated the condition concerning attendance at Anonymous Alcoholic ("AA") meetings, we need not discuss his complaints with regard to the other allegation. See id.
Diana Martinez, a Bexar County probation officer, testified about the contents of the probation office's file concerning Baldwin. Martinez related the procedure used by the probation office to verify a probationer's attendance at AA meetings. Baldwin was required to take a "log sheet" to each meeting he attended and have the meeting sponsor sign it. He was then required to show the log to his probation officer during their monthly meeting. Martinez testified Baldwin met with his probation officer on December 9, 2005, and January 13, 2006. During each meeting Baldwin claimed he was attending the required AA meetings but could not offer proof to the probation officer because he left his log sheet at home. The probation officer reminded Baldwin of his obligation to furnish proof of attendance and instructed him to bring the log sheet to his next probation meeting.
Baldwin's wife, Shantae Thomas, testified she transported Baldwin to and from the AA meetings beginning in October 2005. However, she also testified, "I took him for the first two weeks he was out [of prison], and then after that he didn't go after that."
From this record, it is clear the trial court heard evidence that Baldwin claimed to have attended the required meetings. The court also heard evidence that he failed to provide any proof that he attended any meetings and did not attend any meetings after October 2005.
Based on the evidence, we hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion to revoke. Accordingly, we overrule Baldwin's point of error and affirm the trial court's judgment. (3)
Steven C. Hilbig, Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH
1. As to the second allegation, the motion referred to a violation of Condition 16E. The conditions of probation do not contain a condition 16E. However, at the hearing on the motion, the parties presented arguments and evidence addressing the condition requiring Baldwin attend the Alcoholic Anonymous meetings.
2. Baldwin did not testify at the revocation hearing.
3. The State's motion to revoke alleged the violation of the condition of probation as the failure to "provide proof of AA attendance." The probation officer testified the conditions of probation did not specifically require proof of attendance but required attendance at the meetings. However, Baldwin did not raise any objection to this variance either at the revocation hearing or on appeal.