Dinesh Kumar Shah v. State
2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 9621
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Shah was indicted for injury to a child and placed on deferred adjudication with community supervision.
- The supervision terms prohibited law violations, required employment verification, residence-change notification, 500 hours of community service, drug/alcohol testing, and psychological/psychiatric evaluation.
- The State later moved to adjudicate guilt, alleging twelve supervision-violation events; four were abandoned, eight went to hearing.
- The trial court found six violations: two assaults on a household member, failure to provide employment verification, failure to notify of a new residence, failure to perform required community service, and failure to submit to drug/alcohol and psychological/psychiatric evaluations.
- Shah moved for a continuance due to post-procedure pain/drowsiness; the court denied further delays but granted a partial two-day recess; the hearing proceeded with Shah ultimately facing adjudication.
- The trial court adjudicated guilty and imposed a ten-year sentence; Shah appealed on three issues, all of which were overruled by the appellate court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for revocation | Shah argues the State failed to prove violation of supervision terms | Shah contends evidence, especially the assault, is insufficient | Evidence, including bodily-injury finding, supports revocation |
| Constitutional challenges—hearsay evidence | State used hearsay from counseling providers and file entries | Admission violated confrontation/due-process rights | Error not preserved due to lack of timely, specific objection; issues overruled |
| Continuance motion in revocation hearing | denial of continuance prejudiced Shah due to medical condition | No specific prejudice shown; hearing proceeded | No abuse of discretion; denial sustained |
Key Cases Cited
- Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (standard for revocation of supervision; burden on State by preponderance)
- Canseco v. State, 199 S.W.3d 437 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006) (preponderance standard; credibility of witnesses rest with trial court)
- Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980) (multiple violations; affirm if any supports revocation)
- Greer v. State, 999 S.W.2d 484 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999) (reliability of evidence in revocation proceedings)
- Lee v. State, 176 S.W.3d 452 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004) (single witness may support felony conviction; credibility matters for court’s ruling)