Barbara Brookshire Samford v. State
12-15-00152-CR
| Tex. App. | Dec 30, 2015Background
- Appellant Barbara Brookshire Samford pleaded guilty to harassment; trial court deferred adjudication and placed her on one year community supervision.
- A no-contact condition prohibited contact with Laura Squiers, Buddy Zeagler, and any board members of the T.L.L. Temple Foundation.
- The State moved to adjudicate guilt alleging Samford contacted multiple foundation board members; it later proceeded on allegations involving board members Jack Sweeny and Tom Darmstadter.
- At the revocation hearing Samford pleaded not true; evidence showed she rang Sweeny’s doorbell and attempted to see Darmstadter at his office (employee told her he was not present).
- The trial court found the violations true, adjudicated guilt, and assessed six months’ confinement (suspended) plus a $250 fine; Samford appealed claiming insufficient evidence and constitutional/free-speech objections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Samford) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence sufficed to show Samford violated no-contact condition by contacting named board members | State: Proof that Sweeny and Darmstadter were board members and Samford contacted them satisfied preponderance standard | Samford: She did not know they were board members; lacked requisite knowledge | Court: No knowledge element required; evidence of contact plus membership supports revocation; claim waived for failure to object at sentencing |
| Whether attempted contact with Darmstadter constituted a violation | State: Attempted contact is contact for purposes of the condition | Samford: Attempt did not amount to prohibited contact | Court: Need only one proven violation (contact with Sweeny); upheld revocation without resolving attempt issue fully |
| Whether condition was unconstitutionally vague or impermissibly restricted assembly/free speech | State: Condition was a valid term of probation/community supervision | Samford: Condition infringed rights under Texas Constitution (Assembly and Free Speech) | Court: Constitutional challenge forfeited by failure to object when condition was imposed; not preserved for appeal |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in adjudicating guilt after deferred adjudication | State: Met burden by preponderance; revocation within trial court’s discretion | Samford: Procedural and substantive errors warrant reversal | Court: No abuse of discretion; some evidence supported revocation, so judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (state must prove probation violation by preponderance)
- Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (preponderance standard explained for revocation)
- Taylor v. State, 604 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (trial court as sole trier of fact in revocation hearings)
- Flournoy v. State, 589 S.W.2d 705 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (revocation is within trial court’s discretion once burden met)
- Caddell v. State, 605 S.W.2d 275 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (appellate review limited to abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Hart v. State, 264 S.W.3d 364 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2008) (one proven violation suffices to uphold revocation)
- Cochran v. State, 78 S.W.3d 20 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2002) (same principle that a single violation supports revocation)
- Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (same)
- Eddie v. State, 100 S.W.3d 437 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003) (due process requires adequate notice/specificity of probation conditions)
- Speth v. State, 6 S.W.3d 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (objections to probation conditions must be raised when imposed to preserve error)
- Wright v. State, 28 S.W.3d 526 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000) (constitutional claims may be waived by failure to object)