Combest, John Elsworth
PD-0379-15
| Tex. App. | May 4, 2015Background
- Combest pleaded guilty to indecency with a child and received a 10-year deferred adjudication with community supervision.
- The State moved to adjudicate guilt on four supervision-violation grounds; the trial court granted the motion on all four and sentenced Combest to 14 years’ confinement.
- The First Court of Appeals affirmed only the no-contact violation finding and held it supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
- The appellate court concluded the no-contact finding was based on mere seeing the minor at a hospital, not on contact, communication, or intentional interaction.
- Combest’s appellate issues included sufficiency of the evidence, lack of a bill of costs related to the adjudication, and potential double jeopardy in adjudicating from the same no-contact allegation.
- This Court granted review to resolve what constitutes ‘contact’ in a no-contact provision and whether double jeopardy principles apply in probation revocation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is there sufficient evidence of a no-contact violation? | Combest | Combest | Preponderance evidence supports violation |
| Does double jeopardy bar adjudicating guilt for the same no-contact conduct? | Combest | Combest | Double jeopardy does not apply to probation revocation |
| Was the potential lack of a bill of costs a basis to reverse? | Combest | Combest | Affirmed on no-contact issue; bill of costs issue not reached |
Key Cases Cited
- Speth v. State, 965 S.W.2d 13 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998) (defines contact to include various forms of association or communication)
- Hacker v. State, 389 S.W.3d 860 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (contracted no-contact context distinguished; presence in home not prohibited contact)
- Pequenco v. State, 710 S.W.2d 709 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1986) (no-contact provisions serve probation objectives)
- Sanchez v. State, 603 S.W.2d 869 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (standard for revocation based on violation of supervisory conditions)
- Garcia v. State, 387 S.W.3d 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (single violation can support revocation of community supervision)
- Johnson v. State, 286 S.W.3d 346 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (trial court authority to impose jail as a condition of supervision)