Carlos Javier Morales v. the State of Texas
07-20-00090-CR
| Tex. App. | Jul 8, 2021Background
- Morales was placed on deferred-adjudication community supervision in Dec. 2016 for failure to identify; the term was extended multiple times.
- In Jan. 2018 he was convicted of driving while license invalid (with a prior). In May 2019 the State moved to adjudicate the 2016 case and to revoke supervision in the driving case, alleging failures to report, leaving the county without permission, unpaid fines/fees, and incomplete community service.
- At the unified hearing Morales pleaded “not true.” The probation officer testified he failed to report, left the county, owed fees, and did not complete required community service at an approved site.
- Morales presented evidence he performed 61 hours at Sacred Heart Catholic Church; the State proved Sacred Heart lacked a contract with the Department and was not an approved site for community-service hours.
- The trial court found violations (including failure to report and leaving the county—findings Morales did not contest), adjudicated him guilty on the identification offense, revoked supervision on the driving offense, and sentenced him to 45 days’ jail concurrent. The appellate court corrected the judgment to show Morales pled “not true.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Department’s policy (only contracted organizations qualify as approved community-service sites) violates the Establishment Clause | Morales: excluding Sacred Heart (a religious charity) from the approved list violates the Establishment Clause | State: revocation was proper based on unchallenged violations (failure to report, leaving county); policy issue does not prevent revocation | Court: Affirmed. Rejected Morales’s sole issue and held trial court did not abuse its discretion; judgment reformed to reflect plea of “not true.” |
Key Cases Cited
- Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (standard of review and burden in revocation hearings)
- Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (revocation standard)
- Garrett v. State, 619 S.W.2d 172 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (appellate review viewed in light most favorable to trial court)
- Mattias v. State, 731 S.W.2d 936 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (trial court as sole trier of fact on credibility)
- Smith v. State, 286 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (proof of any one violation suffices for revocation)
- McDonald v. State, 608 S.W.2d 192 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (one-violation rule for revocation)
- French v. State, 830 S.W.2d 607 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (appellate authority to reform judgments to reflect the record)