Bond, Patrick
PD-0602-15
Tex. App.May 22, 2015Background
- Patrick Bond pleaded guilty to retaliation and received two years’ deferred adjudication plus a $200 fine.
- The State filed a petition to adjudicate, alleging four probation violations: (1) possession of a firearm, (2) failure to pay monthly supervision fees, (3) failure to perform required monthly community-service hours, and (4) failure to attend/complete anger-control counseling.
- At the revocation hearing Bond pleaded not true to all allegations; the trial court orally found paragraph 1 (firearm) not true but found paragraphs 2–4 true, adjudicated Bond guilty, and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment.
- Bond appealed, arguing economic inability to pay (unemployment, eviction) caused his noncompliance and that inability-to-pay cannot justify revocation; he invoked Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 42.12 § 11(b).
- The Second Court of Appeals reviewed for abuse of discretion, treated the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court, and affirmed the revocation and adjudication.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Bond's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by revoking deferred adjudication based on failures tied to economic hardship | The State showed by a preponderance Bond failed to complete required community service, pay fees, and attend counseling; the court may disbelieve inability-to-pay excuses | Bond argued unemployment and financial hardship made compliance impossible and the court must consider ability to pay before revoking under art. 42.12 § 11(b) | Affirmed. The court held the State proved at least one violation (failure to do required community service at the required monthly rate), and the trial court was entitled to reject Bond’s inability-to-pay excuse and revoke supervision |
Key Cases Cited
- Leblanc v. State, 908 S.W.2d 572 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1995) (discusses consideration of ability to pay)
- Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (standards for revocation and appellate review)
- Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard for revocation)
- Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (proof of any single violation supports revocation)
- Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (trial court is sole judge of witness credibility in revocation proceedings)
- Elizondo v. State, 966 S.W.2d 671 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998) (failure to perform community service can support revocation)