Dione Diane Blades v. State
07-18-00029-CR
Tex. App.Apr 5, 2019Background
- Appellant Dione Diane Blades pled guilty (Feb 2, 2017) to possession of a controlled substance; court deferred adjudication and placed her on 3 years’ community supervision with a $3,000 fine and $180 restitution.
- Supervision was amended to permit participation in Concho Valley substance-abuse treatment; she was to serve ten days in county jail before transfer.
- The State moved to adjudicate in Oct/Nov 2017, alleging Blades used marijuana, methamphetamine, and Tylenol 4 and failed/voluntarily left the Concho Valley program.
- At the Jan 24, 2018 revocation hearing, Concho Valley probation officer Melissa Migel testified Blades admitted using marijuana (June 23), methamphetamine (July 2), and Tylenol 4 (July 5); Blades admitted she voluntarily left the program.
- The trial court found those violations, adjudicated Blades guilty, and sentenced her to 10 years’ incarceration, $3,000 fine, and $180 restitution. Blades appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that Blades used marijuana | State: probation officer’s testimony and Blades’ admission prove use | Blades disputed some admissions but did not deny marijuana use | Court: Evidence sufficient; admission supports revocation |
| Sufficiency of evidence that Blades used methamphetamine | State: positive test and probation officer testimony show use | Blades denied using meth on July 2 and disputed telling Migel | Court: Credibility resolved for officer; sufficient evidence |
| Sufficiency of evidence that Blades used Tylenol 4 | State: officer testified Blades admitted Tylenol 4 use | Blades claimed Tylenol 4 was prescribed | Court: Court credited officer; admission supports violation |
| Whether failure to complete/voluntarily terminate Concho Valley program supports revocation | State: testimony that Blades left and did not complete program | Blades admitted leaving but disputed other facts | Court: Not reached—unnecessary because any one violation sufficed to uphold adjudication |
Key Cases Cited
- Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (standard: State must prove violation by preponderance; revocation reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (revocation standard and appeal review principles)
- Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (State’s burden in revocation proceedings)
- Garrett v. State, 619 S.W.2d 172 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (review evidence in light most favorable to revocation)
- Mattias v. State, 731 S.W.2d 936 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (trial court sole trier of fact; credibility determinations)
- McDonald v. State, 608 S.W.2d 192 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (proof of a single violation sufficient to revoke probation)
- Taylor v. State, 604 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (same principle)
- Cunningham v. State, 488 S.W.2d 117 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972) (oral admission to probation officer can suffice to support revocation)
- Barajas v. State, 682 S.W.2d 588 (Tex. App.—Waco 1984) (same)