Cleveland Nixon v. State, 05-15-00485-CR

Background

Cleveland Nixon pleaded guilty (deferred adjudication) to injury to a child (3rd° felony) on June 27, 2012; placed on 5 years’ community supervision and fined $1,000.
The State filed motions to adjudicate in March and September 2014 alleging family-violence assaults and that Nixon violated supervision by contacting the complaining witness, Keisha (Pope) Nixon.
The trial court modified conditions to include a no-contact order with Pope Nixon; despite this, testimony showed continued contact, a Las Vegas marriage, and multiple police/medical reports alleging assaults while on supervision.
Nixon sought release on bail pending adjudication/appeal (oral request post-adjudication; written motion filed Jan 2, 2015). The trial court denied bond after hearings (oral denial Oct 14, 2014; written order entered Apr 2, 2015 after mandamus).
At hearings Pope Nixon gave inconsistent testimony—sometimes recanting due to intoxication/medication, sometimes confirming assaults—and testified she and Nixon continued residing together. The trial court adjudicated guilt and sentenced Nixon to five years’ imprisonment.

Issues

Issue	Nixon's Argument	State's Argument	Held
1. Whether the trial court could consider evidence beyond the Oct 14, 2014 bond hearing	Trial court was limited to evidence presented at Oct 14 hearing; prior hearing evidence was not expressly admitted or judicially noticed	Trial court properly considered evidence from prior hearings; it referenced those proceedings and the record	Held: Court may consider the full record/previous hearings; trial court did so and issue overruled
2. Whether the evidence supports denying bail because Nixon was likely to reoffend or violate conditions	Record insufficient to justify denial of bail; abuse of discretion	Record (continued contact, marriage, police/medical reports, reported assaults) supports trial court’s finding of risk	Held: Evidence as a whole supports denial; no abuse of discretion
3. Credibility of complaining witness and weight of conflicting testimony	Nixon argued recantations and inconsistencies undermined the State’s case for denying bond	State argued trial court as factfinder could disbelieve recantations and rely on prior reports and testimony	Held: Trial court entitled to assess credibility and draw reasonable inferences; deference applied to fact findings
4. Procedural: Effect of delay/lack of immediate written order on appeal bond process	Nixon contended lack of written order prevented appeal and improperly delayed resolution	State noted mandamus compelled the trial court to enter a written order; merits determined on record	Held: Mandamus secured written ruling; merits reviewed and denial affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Coble v. State, 871 S.W.2d 192 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (convicted defendant no longer presumed innocent)
Coutta v. State, 385 S.W.3d 641 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2012) (no presumption of innocence after conviction)
Ex parte Anderer, 61 S.W.3d 398 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (interest in freedom pending appeal balanced against societal interest in law enforcement)
Ex parte Turner, 612 S.W.2d 611 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (abuse-of-discretion standard for bail-pending-appeal rulings)
Ex parte Peterson, 117 S.W.3d 804 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (defer to trial court fact findings supporting discretionary rulings)
Ex parte Lewis, 219 S.W.3d 335 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (procedural guidance; discussed in context of appellate review)
Ex parte White, 160 S.W.3d 46 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (almost total deference to trial court credibility determinations)
Ex parte Brown, 158 S.W.3d 449 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (review of legal conclusions de novo)
In the Interest of J.J.C., 302 S.W.3d 436 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2009) (trial court presumed to judicially know prior proceedings in a case tried before it)