Opinion issued October 22, 2013.
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-12-01102-CR
———————————
STACY DONNELL MERRITT, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 228th District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1108142
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Stacy Donnell Merritt, pleaded guilty to possession with intent to
deliver a controlled substance, and the trial court deferred an adjudication of guilt
and ordered appellant placed under community supervision for 10 years, plus a
$500 fine and $253 in court costs. Four years later, the State filed a motion to
adjudicate appellant’s guilt, proceeding on six alleged violations of the conditions
of appellant’s community supervision. Appellant pleaded “not true” to the alleged
violations. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found five of the six
violations to be true and assessed punishment at 25 years’ confinement. We
affirm.
BACKGROUND
The State’s motion to revoke alleged that appellant violated twelve
conditions of probation. However, at the adjudication hearing, the State proceeded
on the following six violations: that appellant (1) committed an offense against
the State of Texas, to-wit; the sexual assault of a child under the age of fourteen,
(2) failed to work faithfully at suitable employment and present written written
verification of employment, (3) failed to participate in the community service
program and perform 250 hours at the rate of eight hours per month, (4) failed to
pay supervision fees at the rate of $60 per month for the duration of community
supervision, (5) failed to pay a fine of $500 and court costs at the rate of $25 per
month, and (6) failed to pay laboratory fees of $5 per month for the duration of
community supervision. Appellant pleaded “not true” to all of the allegations in the
motion to revoke.
2
Appellant’s probation officer, D. Davis, testified that appellant failed to
perform the requisite community service hours and failed pay the supervision fees,
laboratory fees, and court fines and costs.
Much of the testimony at the adjudication hearing involved the “new law”
violation of appellant’s probation. B.G., appellant’s cousin, testified that appellant
performed oral sex on her when she was in the fifth grade and below the age of
fourteen years old. Then, Officer M. Carmichael—an investigator in the juvenile
sex crimes division of the Houston Police Department who had discovered the
sexual abuse when interviewing B.G. at school—testified as to her discussions
with B.G. and B.G.’s mother and grandmother. Specifically, Carmichael testified
about what B.G. had told her about the details of the alleged offense. Carmichael
also testified that B.G. was “frustrated” with her mother and grandmother and
other “people in her family who she had expressed or told that this had happened to
[her].”
Appellant, testifying in his own behalf, stated that he was unable to keep up
with his community service because he did not have adequate transportation. He
said that he got a ride from his mother when possible, but that the funds to his bus
pass had been suspended. He further testified that he was unable to pay his fines
and fees because it was difficult to maintain employment. He speculated that B.G.
3
had accused him of sexual assault because she was upset when he told her to go in
the house because it was late.
After hearing all of the evidence, the court found all of the State’s
allegations to be true, except for appellant’s failure to find gainful employment.
The court then assessed punishment at 25 years’ confinement
REVOCATION OF COMMUNITY SUPERVISION
In his sole issue on appeal, appellant contends the trial court erred in
revoking his community supervision based on the “new law” violation.
Specifically, appellant argues that “the trial court abused its discretion by
overruling appellant’s hearsay objection to testimony given by Officer Carmichael
regarding statements by the complaining witness.”
Standard of Review
Our review of the trial court’s order revoking community supervision is
limited to determining whether the trial court abused its discretion. See Rickels v.
State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); see also Canseco v. State, 199
S.W.3d 437, 439 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. ref’d). When a trial
court finds several violations of community-supervision conditions, we will affirm
if the proof of any single allegation is sufficient. See Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d
924, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980); Canseco, 199 S.W.3d at 439. Thus,
to prevail on appeal, a defendant must successfully challenge all of the findings
4
that support the trial court’s revocation order. See Moore, 605 S.W.2d at 926; see
also Sterling v. State, 791 S.W.2d 274, 277 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1990, pet.
ref’d) (citing Moore, 605 S .W.2d at 926).
Analysis
Here, in addition to appellant’s alleged sexual assault of B.G. and his
complaint that hearsay was admitted in support of this ground for revocation, the
record also shows that appellant failed to complete his community supervision
hours or pay his fees and fines. At the adjudication hearing, the trial court orally
pronounced that he found all of the grounds for revocation to be true “with the
exception of the gainful employment.” Because appellant does not challenge the
sufficiency of the evidence supporting these other grounds for the revocation of his
community supervision, we overrule his sole issue. See Moore, 605 S.W.2d at
926; Sterling, 791 S.W.2d at 277.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Sherry Radack
Chief Justice
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Bland and Huddle.
Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
5