Cantu v. State
339 S.W.3d 688
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Cantu pleaded guilty to deadly conduct and received six-year deferred-adjudication community supervision.
- Five months later, officers responding to shots fired observed a truck driven by Cantu with Garza in the bed; a loaded handgun was found under a bandana in the truck bed.
- State petitioned to adjudicate guilt and revoke the deferred adjudication supervision based on alleged violations of supervision conditions.
- A hearing was held and the trial court granted the petition, adjudicating guilt and imposing six years' confinement.
- The issues focus on Crawford confrontation implications and the sufficiency of the evidence to revoke supervision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation Clause applicability | Cantu argues Crawford applies to exclude Exhibit 3/4. | State contends evidence is non-testimonial and admissible. | Crawford does not bar admission; evidence admissible. |
| Sufficiency to revoke supervision | Cantu contends lacks proof of violation. | State proves, by preponderance, at least one violation. | Evidence sufficient to revoke supervision; judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Sixth Amendment confrontation clause applies to criminal prosecutions)
- Mauro v. State, 235 S.W.3d 374 (Tex.App.-Eastland 2007) (Crawford does not apply to deferred-adjudication proceedings)
- Trevino v. State, 218 S.W.3d 234 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2007) (Crawford does not apply to probation revocation)
- Diaz v. State, 172 S.W.3d 668 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2005) (Crawford does not apply to community-supervision revocation)