Opinion issued February 19, 2015
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-14-00039-CR
———————————
JOSEPH WALTER HICKMAN, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 412th District Court
Brazoria County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 64265
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Joseph Walter Hickman, pleaded guilty to failure to register as a
sex offender, and the trial court placed him on community supervision for five
years. The State subsequently moved to revoke his community supervision. The
trial court revoked appellant’s community supervision and assessed appellant’s
punishment at forty-two months’ confinement. In one issue on appeal, appellant
argues that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his community
supervision.
We affirm.
Background
On February 24, 2011, in Brazoria County, appellant pleaded guilty to
failure to register as a sex offender and the trial court placed him on community
supervision for five years. Appellant was allowed to reside in Houston County, but
he was still required to maintain contact with Brazoria County in addition to
attending monthly appointments with a probation officer in Houston County. As
an additional condition of his community supervision, appellant was required to
complete eighty hours of community service at a rate of eight hours per week.
Appellant was further required to appear at periodic review hearings before the
trial court in Brazoria County.
On September 6, 2013, the State moved to revoke appellant’s community
supervision, alleging that appellant failed to (1) report to his supervision officer
during the months of July and August 2013; (2) pay a supervision fee; (3) pay a
fine; (4) perform community service; (5) appear at a June 2013 hearing; and
(6) appear at an August 2013 review hearing.
2
The trial court conducted a hearing. Appellant’s probation officer from
Houston County, Debra Jones, testified that she met with appellant when he
transferred from Brazoria County to Houston County. Jones stated that appellant
had a negative attitude about being on probation and “just felt like he shouldn’t
have to be doing this.” She testified that appellant was “reluctantly cooperative at
first” and would attend his meetings with her and completed eleven hours of
community service. Jones further testified that, at some point, appellant informed
her he was too ill to continue doing his community service, but he never presented
her with any documentation from a medical provider excusing him from
community service.
Jones stated that she met with appellant in June 2013 and, at that meeting,
they set the time for his next appointment in July and she gave him an appointment
card with the date and time recorded on it. However, appellant did not report for
his scheduled appointment in July, nor did he attempt to contact Jones to explain
his absence or reschedule. Appellant failed to report to her again in August. Jones
sent a letter to prompt him to report back to her and to schedule an appointment,
but he never responded. She testified that the third time he failed to report and
made no contact with her, she was required to refer his case back to Brazoria
County, which she did in September 2013. Jones testified that she recommended
revoking his probation because he failed to report and “it’s difficult to work with
3
someone who just won’t show up.” On cross-examination, Jones acknowledged
that appellant had reported to her every month from September 2012 until June
2013, and she testified that she was aware he had some health problems and that he
had given her some letters showing that he had kept various appointments at the
VA hospital.
Steven Duke, a probation officer with Brazoria County, also testified that
appellant was required to attend a review hearing before the Brazoria County trial
court on June 20, 2013, but he failed to appear. Appellant had another review
hearing scheduled for August 23, 2013, and, again, he failed to appear. Duke
testified that, in the past, appellant had called to say that he could not attend a
review hearing scheduled for February 2013 because “he was ill,” but appellant
had made no contact with the court or one of his probation officers regarding his
failure to appear at the June and August hearings. Duke testified that he called
appellant after he missed his June 20 hearing. Appellant told Duke that he was not
aware that he was supposed to appear and provided Duke with a new address. At
that time, Duke informed appellant that he was required to appear at another
review hearing on August 23 at 9:00 a.m. However, appellant failed to appear.
Another Brazoria County probation officer, Miranda Craddock, testified that
appellant’s case was assigned to her when he moved to Houston County. She
testified that she maintained contact with appellant via phone calls and occasional
4
letters. Craddock testified that she sent appellant written notice of the June 20
hearing in February 2013. After his failure to appear in June, Craddock sent
appellant another letter.
Kelly Wright, the probation officer assigned to appellant’s case after the
State moved to revoke his community supervision, testified that she visited
appellant while he was in jail to discuss the allegations made against him and “just
make sure he understood everything.” She testified that appellant “didn’t
understand why he was in jail, why he was on probation or really he just said he
didn’t know why he was still on probation or why he had to register [as a sex
offender].” Appellant told Wright that “he shouldn’t have to register so this whole
probation was bogus and he shouldn’t have to do it.” Wright testified that she
reviewed appellant’s original court orders with him and reminded him that he was
on probation for failing to register and “he said, yes, but I shouldn’t have to
register.”
Wright stated that she went through each allegation the State made in its
motion to revoke and appellant “had a reason why he thought it was justified that
he did what he did.” For example, appellant told Wright that on one occasion
when he failed to report, he was having car trouble and tried to report it but could
not. He told her that he worked twenty hours of community service but was only
given credit for eleven hours, so he refused to work any more hours if his time
5
would not be reported correctly. Wright testified that appellant informed her that
he was sick in August 2013 and that was why he missed his hearing date.
However, he could not provide her with any documentation and “never specified
what was wrong with him.” Appellant acknowledged to Wright that he never
provided any documentation to his Houston County probation officer. He said that
“everybody knew he was sick.” Wright testified that, in her opinion, appellant was
not taking his probation seriously and that his actions showed “a tremendous lack
of effort.” She also recommended that the trial court revoke his probation because
“he does not believe he needs to be on probation, nor does he believe he needs to
register as a sex offender. Therefore, I don’t think he’s going to participate in
probation.”
Appellant testified at the revocation hearing that he reported as required by
the terms of his probation each month until July and August of 2013. He failed to
report at that time because he “believe[d] he was having health issues at the time
with [his] heart and diabetes.” He stated that he told Jones, his Houston County
probation officer, about his various health issues. Appellant also testified that he
was not hospitalized during the time period relevant to this case. Regarding the
State’s specific allegations, he could not recall why he failed to report in July 2013
but he “probably was” having health issues at the time, and he also had problems
6
with his vehicle. Appellant testified that he notified Jones of his car trouble and
attempted to reschedule his appointment, but he could not recall what happened.
Appellant also testified that he completed eleven hours of community
service at his initial placement, but that office ran out of work for him. He found
another community service assignment and completed twenty-nine hours of
community service there, but he testified that he was never given any written
confirmation of the hours he performed and his probation officer was supposed to
call to get the report regarding his community service performance.
Regarding his failure to appear at his review hearings, appellant testified that
he did not recall ever being notified to appear at either the June 20, 2013 or the
August 23, 2013 hearing. He stated that he would “probably” recall if he had been
contacted and that he would have attended had he been contacted. He again
testified that he had on-going health issues that required a “series of appointments
sometime during that time.” He also testified that he would cooperate with the
probation requirements if the trial court decided not to revoke his community
supervision. On cross examination, appellant testified that he “probably did” have
a phone conversation with Duke on July 5, 2013, but he could not recall what they
had discussed.
The trial court also took judicial notice of its file in the case, which reflected
that the trial court admonished appellant that he was required to appear in February
7
2013. Appellant did not appear in February 2013, but he contacted the trial court
coordinator. The trial court rescheduled his review hearing for June 20, 2013, and
instructed the court coordinator to send a letter with the new setting to appellant at
his address of record. The trial court observed that the file contained no indication
that the letter sent by the trial court was ever returned.
The trial court found that appellant failed to report to his supervision officer
in July and August 2013, failed to pay a supervision fee, and failed to appear at the
July and August review hearings, and the court revoked appellant’s community
supervision and assessed his punishment at forty-two months’ confinement. This
appeal followed.
Revocation of Community Supervision
In his sole issue on appeal, appellant argues that the trial court abused its
discretion by revoking his community supervision.
A. Standard of Review
At a hearing to revoke a defendant’s community supervision, the State must
prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant has violated a
condition of his community supervision. Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763–64
(Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Silber v. State, 371 S.W.3d 605, 611 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, no pet.). A preponderance of the evidence supports an
order revoking probation when the “greater weight of the credible
8
evidence . . . create[s] a reasonable belief that the defendant has violated a
condition of his probation.” Rickels, 202 S.W.3d at 763–64 (quoting Scamardo v.
State, 517 S.W.2d 293, 298 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974)).
Our review of an order revoking community supervision is limited to
determining whether the trial court abused its discretion in ruling that the
defendant violated the terms of his community supervision. Id. at 763; Silber, 371
S.W.3d at 611. We examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial
court’s order. Silber, 371 S.W.3d at 611; Duncan v. State, 321 S.W.3d 53, 57
(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. ref’d). A finding of a single violation
of the terms of community supervision is sufficient to support revocation. Silber,
371 S.W.3d at 611; see also Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1980) (“We need not address appellant’s other contentions since one
sufficient ground for revocation will support the court’s order to revoke
probation.”).
B. Analysis
Here, as a condition of his probation, appellant was required to attend review
hearings before the trial court. Appellant himself acknowledges that he failed to
appear at his June 2013 and August 2013 review hearings. He testified that he was
having health and vehicle problems, but he acknowledged that he could provide no
documentation regarding those problems. He testified that he did not attend the
9
review hearings because he did not know that he needed to do so. However, the
State presented evidence, in the form of the trial court’s own file and the testimony
of appellant’s probation officers, that appellant was notified of this requirement
and that he was provided notice of the specific dates and times of his review
hearings. Thus, we conclude that the “greater weight of the credible evidence . . .
create[s] a reasonable belief” that appellant violated a condition of his probation by
failing to appear for his review hearings. See Rickels, 202 S.W.3d at 763–64.
We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that
appellant violated this term of his community supervision. See id. at 763; Silber,
371 S.W.3d at 611. Because a finding of a single violation of the terms of
community supervision is sufficient to support revocation, we need not consider
the remaining grounds for revocation found by the trial court. See Silber, 371
S.W.3d at 611.
We overrule appellant’s sole issue.
Conclusion
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Evelyn V. Keyes
Justice
Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Higley, and Brown.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
10