Elijah Brown v. State
12-14-00366-CR
| Tex. App. | Mar 2, 2015Background
- Appellant Elijah Brown was on deferred adjudication for burglary in two Trinity County causes (10078-A and 10161-A); the State filed identical Motions to Adjudicate (Aug 12, 2014).
- The State alleged eight probation violations in each case, including a new burglary (July 2014), three positive marijuana UAs, missed reporting, unpaid fees/restitution, and missed community‑service hours.
- At a joint adjudication hearing (Sept. 30, 2014) Brown pled "not true" to all allegations; the court waived bifurcation, heard testimony, and admitted three toxicology reports.
- Key witnesses: probation officer (testified to missed reporting, arrearages, and community‑service shortfall), One Source toxicologist (identified marijuana metabolite in three samples), fireworks‑stand owner, and two acquaintances who implicated Brown in the July burglary and observed unexplained cash.
- The trial court found all eight allegations true in each cause and adjudicated Brown guilty, sentencing him to 12 years’ TDCJ‑ID on each cause to run concurrently; appellate counsel filed an Anders brief concluding the appeal is frivolous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Brown) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion in adjudicating guilt after alleged probation violations | Evidence proves violations by preponderance (new burglary, positive UAs, arrears, missed reporting/community service) | Contends insufficient or non‑specific proof on several allegations; pled not true | Court (via appellate counsel analysis) concluded at least burglary and positive UAs were proven by a preponderance; no abuse of discretion shown |
| Sufficiency of evidence for new offense (burglary) | Testimony of accomplice, owner’s loss estimate, corroboration, and appellant’s alleged confession support finding | Argues witness credibility and potential inconsistencies might undermine proof | Appellate counsel found accomplice testimony and corroboration sufficient to support the finding |
| Admissibility and sufficiency of UA evidence | Chain of custody and toxicologist testimony admitted as business records showing carboxy‑THC in samples; appellant’s letter admitted use | Defense objected to certain UA evidence; otherwise appellant’s own letter corroborated use | UA reports and toxicologist testimony supported finding of drug use; appellate counsel deemed this unchallengeable in the record |
| Sufficiency of proof for financial/community‑service/reporting violations | Probation officer testified to delinquency on fees, restitution, reporting, and service hours | Argues testimony was vague/non‑specific as to dates/amounts; challenges ability‑to‑pay not raised | Appellate counsel found evidence on these allegations less specific but unnecessary because single proven violation suffices to uphold adjudication |
Key Cases Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedural requirements when appointed counsel seeks to withdraw on appeal)
- Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (preponderance standard for probation revocation)
- Drugan v. State, 240 S.W.3d 875 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (deferred‑adjudication revocation reviewed like regular revocation)
- Cantu v. State, 842 S.W.2d 667 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for revocation decisions)
- Cochran v. State, 78 S.W.3d 20 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2002) (affirming revocation if any single alleged violation is supported by some evidence)
- Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (same principle: one proven violation suffices to uphold revocation)