Austin Fowler Schoppe v. State
10-15-00374-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 26, 2016Background
- Austin Fowler Schoppe pleaded guilty to (1) possession of marijuana (≤2 oz.) and (2) unlawful carrying of a weapon; trial court deferred adjudication and placed him on two years’ community supervision with $1,000 fines in each case.
- State moved to proceed to adjudication alleging multiple community-supervision violations; after an evidentiary hearing the trial court found violations and adjudicated guilt, sentencing Schoppe to short county-jail terms and probation conditions.
- Relevant supervision conditions included: (1) commit no new offenses (report arrests) and (2) abstain from alcohol and illegal drugs.
- Trooper Aaron Hampton testified that on March 14, 2015 he stopped Schoppe for speeding and observed signs of impairment; Schoppe allegedly admitted consuming two glasses of wine and one beer; DWI charges were later dismissed.
- The trial court found the DWI allegation not true but found Schoppe violated the abstention-from-alcohol condition based on his admission; any single proved violation suffices to revoke deferred adjudication.
- Schoppe also challenged multiple bond increases the trial court imposed after reported bond-condition violations and claimed judicial bias that denied due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Schoppe) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding violations and adjudicating guilt | State: proved by preponderance at least one violation (use of alcohol) supporting revocation | Schoppe: evidence insufficient; court erred in adjudicating guilt | Held: No abuse of discretion; preponderance of evidence of alcohol use justified revocation |
| Whether finding alcohol use can support revocation despite rejecting DWI allegation | State: abstention condition requires only proof of alcohol use, not intoxication or criminal DWI | Schoppe: inconsistent — court rejected DWI yet relied on same facts to revoke for alcohol use; improper to punish admission when DWI suppressed | Held: Court may credit admission of alcohol use independently; revocation valid without proving DWI |
| Whether Trooper Hampton’s testimony/admission was sufficiently credible to prove violation | State: Hampton’s testimony about admission is credible and the fact-finder may believe parts of testimony | Schoppe: Hampton lacked credibility (evidence issues in DWI) so admission cannot support revocation | Held: Credibility for each factual point is for the trial court; it could accept the admission while rejecting other testimony |
| Whether trial court’s bond increases and actions showed bias/denied due process | State: bond increases responded to repeated bond-condition violations; court acted within discretion under art. 17.09 | Schoppe: bond increases excessive, procedurally improper, designed to chill appeal and show judicial bias | Held: Record does not show clear bias or partiality; bond increases were within court’s discretion and did not deny due process |
Key Cases Cited
- Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (standard of review for revocation is abuse of discretion)
- Hacker v. State, 389 S.W.3d 860 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (State must prove revocation allegations by a preponderance)
- Garrett v. State, 619 S.W.2d 172 (Tex. Crim. App.) (appellate courts view revocation evidence in light most favorable to trial court)
- Smith v. State, 286 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (proof of any one violation suffices to revoke community supervision)
- Lancon v. State, 253 S.W.3d 699 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (factfinder may believe some testimony and disbelieve other parts)
- Brumit v. State, 206 S.W.3d 639 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (due-process requires neutral, detached tribunal; bias must be clearly shown)