AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed August 20, 2015.
S In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-14-00942-CR
STEVEN LEE GORDON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 219th Judicial District Court
Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 219-82365-2012
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Francis, Brown, and Stoddart
Opinion by Justice Brown
Steven Gordon appeals the trial court’s judgment adjudicating him guilty of prescription
fraud, revoking his community supervision, and sentencing him to ten years in prison. In a
single issue, he contends the trial court abused its discretion in finding true the allegation that he
committed solicitation of capital murder because there was legally insufficient evidence to
support such a finding. We affirm.
In March 2013, appellant pleaded guilty to prescription fraud. As part of a plea bargain,
the trial court accepted appellant’s plea but deferred a finding of guilty and placed appellant on
community supervision for three years. Two months later, the State filed a Petition to Enter
Final Adjudication of Defendant’s Guilt. Among other things, the petition alleged appellant had
committed solicitation of capital murder.
A hearing on the State’s motion was held one month after the jury convicted appellant of
the solicitation of capital murder charge. The same judge presided over both the trial and
revocation proceeding, and appellant was represented by the same counsel at both proceedings.
At the hearing, appellant pleaded not true to the State’s allegation. As evidence of the violation,
the prosecutor asked the trial judge to take judicial notice of the earlier proceeding in which
appellant was convicted of solicitation of capital murder. The State noted the judge had presided
over the proceedings, appellant had testified during the trial, and appellant had been convicted of
the new offense. The trial judge agreed to take judicial notice, and appellant did not object.
Thereafter, the judge found the allegation true, adjudicated appellant guilty, and assessed
punishment.
On appeal, appellant complains there is insufficient evidence to support revocation of his
community supervision because the trial court revoked him based solely on the taking of judicial
notice of facts heard in a prior proceeding, which he contends is improper.
We review an appeal from a revocation of community supervision under an abuse of
discretion standard. Hacker v. State, 389 S.W.3d 860, 865 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). A trial court
abuses its discretion in revoking community supervision if the State fails to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that a violation of community supervision occurred. Id.
Appellant’s exact complaint was previously rejected in Broussard v. State, 598 S.W.2d
873 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). There, while on probation for burglary, the defendant was
convicted of aggravated robbery and delivery of methamphetamine. One of the conditions of his
probation was that he commit no other offense against the laws of this state. At the revocation
hearing, the judge took notice of the evidence that he heard while presiding over appellant’s trial
on the new offenses and revoked his probation. 598 S.W.2d at 874. On appeal, the defendant
argued the evidence was insufficient to support probation revocation.
–2–
In rejecting the complaint, the court explained it is “sufficient evidence, to support
probation revocation, that the judge took notice of the evidence that was introduced at a
probationer’s trial before the same judge.” Id. The court noted the appellate records of those
trials were before it to review. Id. Additionally, the court noted appellant forfeited any
complaint about the propriety of the judge taking judicial notice by failing to object below.
Likewise, in this case, the same judge presided over the probation revocation proceeding
and the criminal solicitation trial. On this date, this Court issued its opinion in the criminal
solicitation appeal, No. 05-14-00824-CR, concluding the evidence was legally and factually
sufficient to support the rejection of appellant’s affirmative defense of renunciation. Further,
appellant has waived any complaint about the propriety of the court taking judicial notice by
failing to object. We overrule the sole issue.
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
/Ada Brown/
ADA BROWN
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. R. 47.2(b)
140942F.U05
–3–
S
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
STEVEN LEE GORDON, Appellant On Appeal from the 219th Judicial District
Court, Collin County, Texas
No. 05-14-00942-CR V. Trial Court Cause No. 219-82365-2012.
Opinion delivered by Justice Brown. Justices
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Francis and Stoddart participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered this 20th day of August, 2015.
–4–