Donald Barrett v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 3rd District Court of Anderson County

Annotate this Case
NO. 12-03-00192-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS

DONALD BARRETT,

 
APPEAL FROM THE 369TH

APPELLANT

 

V.

 
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

 
ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS
OPINION

Donald Barrett ("Appellant") appeals the trial court's order revoking his community supervision. Appellant raises two issues on appeal. We affirm.

Background

Appellant was charged with robbery and pleaded "guilty." The trial court adjudicated Appellant guilty and sentenced Appellant to imprisonment for five years, but probated his sentence and placed him on community supervision for five years. On February 24, 2003, the State filed a motion to revoke Appellant's community supervision alleging that Appellant violated certain terms thereof. Specifically, the State contended that Appellant failed to abide by the rules and regulations of the Substance Abuse Felony Punishment Facility ("SAFP") and was unsuccessfully discharged from SAFP.

On May 1, 2003, a hearing was conducted on the State's motion. Appellant pleaded "not true" to the allegations in the State's motion. During the presentation of evidence, the State offered four exhibits, which were admitted over Appellant's hearsay objections. Subsequently, while the State was cross-examining Appellant, the following exchange occurred:

 

Q. Do you want to complete SAFP?

 

A. Yes, sir. I was only 45 days from completing.

 

Q. Okay. Did you ever admit to Mrs. Sheeley, your probation officer, that you had engaged in some misconduct at SAFP?

 

A. Yes, sir.

 

Following the hearing, the trial court revoked Appellant's community supervision and sentenced Appellant to imprisonment for five years. This appeal followed.

 

Revocation of Probation

In his second issue, Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation. The only question presented in an appeal from an order revoking probation is whether the trial court abused its discretion in revoking the defendant's probation. See Lloyd v. State, 574 S.W.2d 159, 160 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). The standard of proof in a revocation proceeding is a preponderance of the evidence. Id. In order to satisfy its burden of proof, the State must prove that the greater weight of the credible evidence before the trial court creates a reasonable belief that a condition of community supervision has been violated as alleged in the motion to revoke. See Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993).

As a general matter, a trial court possesses broad discretion in supervising those defendants who are placed on community supervision. See Speth v. State, 6 S.W.3d 530, 533 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Becker v. State, 33 S.W.3d 64, 66 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2000, no pet.). The degree of the trial court's discretion extends to revocation proceedings such that the trial court has considerable discretion to modify, revoke, or continue the probation. Ex parte Tarver, 725 S.W.2d 195, 200 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986); Becker, 33 S.W.3d at 66. Given the trial court's wide discretion and the unique nature of community supervision revocation proceedings, examination of a revocation order for factually sufficient evidence is inappropriate. See, e.g., Becker, 33 S.W.3d at 66; Joseph v. State, 3 S.W.3d 627, 642 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.); Johnson v. State, 2 S.W.3d 685, 687 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 1999, no pet.); Liggett v. State, 998 S.W.2d 733, 735-36 (Tex. App.- Beaumont 1999, no pet.); Johnson v. State, 943 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, no pet.); Brumbalow v. State, 933 S.W.2d 298, 300 (Tex. App.-Waco 1996, pet. ref'd). As such, the trial court is the exclusive judge of the credibility of the witnesses and determines if the allegations in the motion are sufficiently demonstrated. See Greer v. State, 999 S.W.2d 484, 486 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. ref'd). We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's order. Id.

Appellant contends that the only evidence supporting the trial court's order is contained in the four exhibits to which he objected on hearsay grounds. (1) We disagree. Appellant testified that he was only forty-five days from completing SAFP and that he had admitted to his probation officer that he engaged in misconduct at SAFP. Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court's ruling, we conclude that Appellant's testimony was sufficient to support that he had violated the terms of his community supervision by failing to abide by the rules and regulations of SAFP and that he was unsuccessfully discharged from SAFP. Therefore, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Appellant's probation. Appellant's second issue is overruled.

 
Hearsay

In his first issue, Appellant argues that the trial court improperly admitted four exhibits containing hearsay evidence. We iterate that the only question presented in an appeal from an order revoking probation is whether the trial court abused its discretion in revoking the defendant's probation. See Lloyd, 574 S.W.2d at 160.

As set forth above, Appellant's testimony alone was sufficient to support the trial court's revocation of his community supervision independent of the exhibits in question. Thus, the documents of which Appellant complains have no bearing on the question of whether the trial court abused its discretion. As such, we need not address Appellant's first issue. See Lloyd, 574 S.W.2d at 160.

Conclusion

Having overruled Appellant's second issue, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

JAMES T. WORTHEN

Chief Justice

 

Opinion delivered February 27, 2004.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J. and DeVasto, J.

 
(DO NOT PUBLISH)

1. Appellant's hearsay objections are the subject of Appellant's first issue, which is discussed below.

 

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.