Bobby Lynn Walters Sr. v. State
09-15-00017-CR
| Tex. App. | Dec 9, 2015Background
- Walters pleaded guilty to indecency with a child by sexual contact (victim: his granddaughter). The trial court deferred adjudication and placed him on four years’ community supervision on August 19, 2014.
- Walters signed the standard conditions of supervision and supplemental sex-offender registration admonitions the same day.
- The State moved to revoke on grounds including: failure to report/provide an address as directed; prohibited contact with the victim’s family (mother drove Walters to probation); contact with the victim’s grandmother; refusal to permit a home visit (refused to give physical address); and possessing knives (injurious/vicious habits).
- Probation officers testified Walters failed to call the supervising officer as instructed, said he would live on the victim’s grandmother/ex-wife’s property, gave inconsistent location information, and was found with two pocketknives after arrest. Walters admitted some facts (ride with the victim’s mother; had officer’s phone number) but asserted he fell in court, suffered head injury/memory problems, lacked a phone, and did not understand some conditions.
- The trial court found all alleged violations true except the contact with the victim’s grandmother, adjudicated guilt, and sentenced Walters to 10 years’ imprisonment plus a $2,000 fine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Walters) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency to revoke deferred adjudication: did Walters violate conditions by failing to report/provide address? | Walters did not call the officer as directed and failed to provide a physical address despite being given the officer’s number and an appointment slip he signed. | Walters lacked a working phone, was injured after a courtroom fall, and unintentionally failed to call; he gave location information via a map and tried to secure his camper. | Court held evidence sufficient by a preponderance; probation officer credible; violation proved. |
| Prohibited contact with victim’s family (mother drove him to probation) | Walters had prohibited contact with the victim’s family and admitted his daughter (the victim’s mother) drove him to the office. | Walters said he didn’t know the daughter wasn’t allowed to bring him and relied on a jail note asking him to call for a ride. | Held the State proved the prohibited-contact violation; trial court could disbelieve Walters. |
| Possession of knives (injurious/vicious habits) | Police found two pocketknives on Walters after arrest, constituting a prohibited injurious habit. | Walters testified he didn’t know knives were prohibited and intended to pawn them; he lacked mens rea for violation. | Court accepted testimony that knives were found; violation supported. |
| Refusal to permit officer home visit / concealment of address | Walters either refused or failed to provide a physical address and obstructed a home visit by not giving location details. | Walters asserted he supplied directions, had no formal 9-1-1 address for his camper, and tried to locate an address. | Court credited officer testimony that Walters failed to provide an address; violation proved. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hacker v. State, 389 S.W.3d 860 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (standard: State must prove probation violation by preponderance of the evidence)
- Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (appellate review of revocation limited to abuse of discretion)
- Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (only one sufficient ground required to revoke probation)
- Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (standards for reviewing probation revocation)
- Scamardo v. State, 517 S.W.2d 293 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974) (preponderance standard explained)
- Taylor v. State, 604 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (trial court as sole finder of fact, assesses witness credibility)