Dansby Sr., Michael Edward v. State
468 S.W.3d 225
| Tex. App. | 2015Background
- Dansby Sr. pleaded guilty to indecency with a child; the trial court deferred adjudication and placed him on five years of community supervision.
- Conditions included submitting to polygraphs and completing a sex-offender treatment program.
- During treatment, he refused to answer questions about other victims in a sexual-history polygraph and largely declined to participate in counseling.
- He was discharged from the treatment program without successfully completing it, and the State moved to revoke supervision and adjudicate guilt.
- The trial court revoked supervision, adjudicated guilt, and sentenced Dansby to 18 years’ imprisonment with a fine.
- On direct appeal, the court previously concluded the revocation could be based on non-constitutional grounds; the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals remanded for reconsideration in light of Fifth Amendment issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence independent of the Fifth Amendment claim supports revocation | Dansby contends revocation rested on Fifth Amendment silence and not independent violations. | State contends conditions were violated by noncompliance with treatment and polygraph. | Revocation based solely on Fifth Amendment invocation is invalid; no independent violations shown. |
| Whether estoppel by contract bars complaint about supervision conditions | Dansby asserts estoppel by contract prevents challenging supervision terms. | State relies on estoppel where benefits received bar later challenges to contract terms. | Estoppel by contract does not apply; the Fifth Amendment waiver was not a condition of the contract. |
| Whether Dansby's Fifth Amendment assertion was legitimate under controlling standards | Dansby argues his Fifth Amendment rights were implicated by questions about other victims. | State argues assurances of confidentiality immunize or limit risk. | Dansby made a legitimate Fifth Amendment privilege assertion; there was risk/compulsion and lack of use immunity. |
| Whether the revocation can be sustained under the preponderance standard | Evidence does not prove a violation independent of the Fifth Amendment. | State claims sufficient evidence of noncompliance with treatment and polygraph. | The State failed to prove violations by a preponderance independent of the Fifth Amendment. |
| Whether the error is reversible under Rule 44.2(a) | Constitutional error from revocation due to Fifth Amendment invocation. | State would have consequences notwithstanding; error preservation not a barrier. | The constitutional error is reversible; cannot affirm the conviction on these grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dansby v. State, 398 S.W.3d 233 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (remand; discharge based on Fifth Amendment rights and treatment participation)
- Dansby v. State, 448 S.W.3d 441 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (revocation cannot penalize Fifth Amendment assertions; notice issue)
- Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard; preponderance standard for revocation)
- Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (revocation standard; proof of any one violation suffices)
- Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420 (U.S. 1984) (dual components of privilege: risk of incrimination and compulsion to answer)
- Chapman v. State, 115 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (Fifth Amendment protections in probation contexts)
- Lefkowitz v. Cunningham, 431 U.S. 801 (U.S. 1977) (immunity and prosecutorial authority to grant immunity)
- Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479 (U.S. 1951) (link in chain of evidence; disclosures may incriminate)
- Smith v. State, 70 S.W.3d 848 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (immunity issues and prosecutorial authority to grant immunity)
- Dansby II, 448 S.W.3d 441 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (noting lack of notice about Fifth Amendment waiver in supervision conditions)