Opinion
NO. 01-15-00917-CR
12-21-2017
DENERICK FULFORD, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 178th District Court Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1149046
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 481.115(d). The court deferred adjudication and placed him on community supervision for a period of five years. The State subsequently moved to adjudicate guilt, and after a hearing, the court found appellant guilty of the possession offense, revoked his community supervision, and sentenced him to four years in prison.
In his sole issue on appeal, appellant contends that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke his community supervision. Because the record supports the trial court's power to render the judgment, we affirm.
Background
Denerick Fulford was indicted for possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, with an enhancement for use of a firearm during the offense. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the State abandoned the intent-to-distribute and use-of-a-firearm allegations, and Fulford pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance. The court accepted his guilty plea, but it deferred adjudication and placed him on community supervision for five years. The original term of community supervision was set to expire on May 22, 2013.
During the original community-supervision term, the State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt, alleging that Fulford had violated several conditions of his community supervision. The court amended the conditions and ordered a one-year extension of community supervision. The State dismissed its motion. The court later amended the terms again and extended the final expiration date of Fulford's community supervision to November 22, 2014. It also issued two amended orders that did not further extend Fulford's probationary period. On April 28, 2014, the State filed a second motion to adjudicate guilt, again alleging that Fulford had committed numerous violations of the conditions of his community supervision. A capias was issued on the same day the motion was filed.
At the adjudication hearing, the State alleged four violations of the community-supervision conditions, and Fulford entered a plea of "true" to all four. When asked by the State if testimony from Fulford's probation officer was required, the court responded that its file was sufficient. The State presented no further evidence. Fulford presented testimony from the court liaison officer, who stated, inaccurately, that the term had been extended to March 2014.
After the conclusion of the hearing, and following a risk-assessment analysis, the court adjudged Fulford guilty of the underlying possession offense and sentenced him to four years in prison. Consistent with the clerk's record, the trial judge observed at the sentencing hearing that the community-supervision term expired on November 22, 2014.
Analysis
Fulford raises one issue on appeal. He argues that despite the record's accurate reflection of the November 22, 2014 expiration date for his community supervision, the court erred by finding that it had jurisdiction to adjudicate his guilt because the State never presented evidence at the hearing to establish that he was still under community supervision on April 28, 2014 when it filed its second motion to adjudicate guilt.
The probation revocation proceeding is an administrative hearing, rather than a civil or criminal trial. Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). It is considered an extension of the original sentencing portion of the defendant's trial, and therefore it is subject to the continuing jurisdiction of the trial court. Id. at 874. The trial court maintains its jurisdiction to hear a motion to adjudicate guilt as long as the motion is filed with the court and a capias is issued before the end of the defendant's probationary period. See Ex parte Moss, 446 S.W.3d 786, 792 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (citing former article 42.12, section 5(h) of the Code of Criminal Procedure).
The Legislature repealed article 42.12, effective January 1, 2017, and it enacted chapter 42A of the Code of Criminal Procedure as part of a nonsubstantive revision of community-supervision law. See Act of May 26, 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., ch. 770, § 3.01, 2015 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. 2394. The current version of the pertinent statute is codified at article 42A.108(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The State's second motion to adjudicate guilt was filed and a capias was issued on April 28, 2014, well within the probationary period that was set to expire on November 22, 2014. The trial court therefore had jurisdiction to hear the motion. At the adjudication hearing, Fulford admitted to four violations of the conditions of his community supervision as alleged by the State. This alone is sufficient to support the revocation of Fulford's community supervision. Duncan v. State, 321 S.W.3d 53, 58 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. ref'd) (holding that appellant's plea of true, standing alone, is sufficient to support the revocation of community supervision).
Fulford does not assert that the evidence presented at the hearing was either insufficient to prove his identity or that he violated at least one term of his community supervision. Nor does he challenge the validity of the orders extending his community supervision to November 22, 2014. Instead, he argues that because the State never offered the amended orders or other evidence to establish that he was still on probation at the time the State filed its second motion to adjudicate guilt, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to revoke his community supervision.
When the record on appeal includes the original judgment and order of probation, there is no requirement that the State introduce formal proof of the terms of probation at the revocation hearing. Cobb, 851 S.W.2d at 873-74. Nor is there any requirement that the court take formal judicial notice of such documents. Id.; see also Demease v. State, No. 01-07-01121-CR, 2009 WL 469115, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 26, 2009, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
The appellate record includes the original judgment and order of community supervision, as well as all four trial court orders amending the conditions of Fulford's community supervision. Each amendment was signed by Fulford, indicating his acceptance of the modified terms. The "4th Amended Conditions of Community Supervision" designated November 22, 2014 as the expiration date. Because these documents appear in the record, we conclude that the trial court correctly exercised its jurisdiction to revoke Fulford's community supervision and to adjudge him guilty. We overrule his sole issue.
Conclusion
We affirm the decision of the trial court.
Michael Massengale
Justice Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Massengale, and Caughey. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).