Elijah Brown v. State
12-14-00367-CR
Tex. App.Mar 2, 2015Background
- Appellant Elijah Brown was placed on deferred-adjudication community supervision in two companion causes for burglary of a habitation (orders entered April 15, 2014). Motions to adjudicate filed August 12, 2014 alleged eight identical violations in each cause.
- The key alleged violations included: (1) committing a new burglary (July 1–2, 2014), (2) positive urinalyses for marijuana (May 23, June 23, July 7, 2014), and multiple payment, reporting, and community-service delinquencies. Brown pled "not true" to all allegations.
- Evidence at the joint adjudication hearing: testimony from a co-participant who described breaking into and removing fireworks (corroborated by the owner and another witness), a witness who testified Brown confessed, chain-of-custody and toxicologist testimony establishing marijuana metabolites in three sealed urine samples, and probation officer testimony about missed reports and arrears.
- The trial court found all eight alleged violations true in each cause, adjudicated guilt, and sentenced Brown to 12 years’ imprisonment on each cause, to run concurrently. Trial counsel announced an appeal; appellate counsel (appointed) submitted an Anders brief.
- Appellate counsel’s Anders brief concluded the revocations were supported at least by proof of the new burglary and the positive drug tests by a preponderance of the evidence, so no nonfrivolous issues could be raised as to trial-court abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Brown) | Held (Appellate brief conclusion) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in adjudicating guilt based on the Motion to Adjudicate | The State: preponderance of the evidence proved violations; revocation is within the trial court’s discretion. | Brown: pled not true to all allegations; challenges sufficiency/detail of proofs on several technical violations. | No abuse of discretion shown; at least one violation (burglary) and drug-use findings supported revocation. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for new burglary allegation | Owner and co-participant eyewitness testimony plus corroboration of loss establish Brown’s participation. | Brown denies; argues co-participant credibility and potential inconsistencies. | Evidence (co-participant confession, lookout admission, owner’s loss estimate, corroborating witness who testified to confession) sufficed by preponderance. |
| Sufficiency and admissibility of urine-test evidence (drug use) | Toxicologist and chain-of-custody for three sealed samples show presence of THC metabolite; Brown also authored a letter admitting use. | Brown’s counsel objected to certain drug-test questions at trial; possible challenges to procedures not pursued on appeal. | Toxicologist testimony and admitted exhibits supported finding of drug-use violation; no arguable error demonstrated. |
| Sufficiency of proof for payment/reporting/community-service/drug-testing-fee violations | State offered probation-officer testimony that Brown was delinquent on fees, missed some appointments, and was behind on community service hours and testing fees. | Brown argues the probation officer’s testimony lacked specificity as to dates/amounts and inconsistently described the hours owed. | Although several administrative allegations were thinly supported, those specifics were unnecessary once burglary and drug-use violations were established; appellate counsel deemed no nonfrivolous issue on overall adjudication. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedures for counsel submitting brief when no meritorious appellate issues exist)
- Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (preponderance standard for revocation; what constitutes sufficient evidence)
- Drugan v. State, 240 S.W.3d 875 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (deferred-adjudication revocation reviewed like typical revocation)
- Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (State must prove violation by preponderance to revoke supervision)
- Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (a single proven violation can support revocation)
- Cochran v. State, 78 S.W.3d 20 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2002) (appellate review defers to trial court credibility; single violation suffices to affirm revocation)
- Hart v. State, 264 S.W.3d 364 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2008) (same: some evidence of any violation upholds adjudication)
- Cantu v. State, 842 S.W.2d 667 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (abuse-of-discretion standard described; trial court’s decision must lie outside zone of reasonable disagreement)