Jerrald Eugene Moreland v. the State of Texas
12-20-00200-CR
| Tex. App. | Jul 30, 2021Background
- Moreland was indicted for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon; he pleaded guilty under a plea bargain and received five years deferred-adjudication community supervision.
- The State filed a motion to adjudicate/revoke alleging 11 supervision violations, including a family-violence assault, drug use (marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine), failures to report, failures to pay, leaving the county, and not completing required hours.
- Revocation hearings occurred mostly by videoconference due to COVID-19; witnesses included the alleged victim, eyewitnesses, a police officer, and the community-supervision officer; Moreland testified and called family witnesses.
- The court found multiple allegations true (including drug use and failures to report/pay), revoked supervision, adjudicated guilt, and sentenced Moreland to six years’ imprisonment.
- Moreland appealed, raising three issues: judicial bias/due-process violations at the revocation hearing, failure to order a presentence investigation (PSI), and insufficiency of the evidence supporting the revocation.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judicial bias / due process | Moreland: judge rushed hearing, curtailed defense questioning, made statements showing partiality — denying impartial-judge due process right | State: appellant failed to preserve complaint by contemporaneous objection or motion for new trial; rulings were within court control | Court: assumed arguable fundamental error but found record does not show actual bias or denial of due process; issue overruled |
| Failure to order PSI (Art. 42A.252) | Moreland: judge erred by not ordering a presentence investigation before sentencing | State: error not preserved; alternatively, no harm because statute excepts cases where imprisonment is the only available punishment | Court: after adjudication for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, imprisonment was the only available punishment, so statute did not require a PSI; issue overruled |
| Sufficiency of evidence to revoke | Moreland: evidence insufficient to prove multiple alleged violations | State: Moreland pleaded true to certain allegations (2, 9, 11); plea(s) or other proof suffice to support revocation | Court: record shows pleas/ admissions to at least one drug-use allegation and proof of failure-to-report; a single proved violation suffices to revoke; issue overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Tapia v. State, 462 S.W.3d 29 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (due-process principles apply to community-supervision revocation hearings)
- Grado v. State, 445 S.W.3d 736 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (right to hearing before a neutral and detached body)
- Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (categories of rights for preservation analysis)
- Brumit v. State, 206 S.W.3d 639 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (presumption that trial court acted correctly absent clear showing of bias)
- Jimenez v. State, 446 S.W.3d 544 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014) (no PSI required when imprisonment is the only available punishment after adjudication)
- Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (a plea of true alone can support revocation)
- Sanchez v. State, 603 S.W.2d 869 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (proof of a single supervision violation is sufficient to revoke)
- Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (U.S. 1994) (judicial rulings ordinarily do not establish bias unless derived from extrajudicial source or extreme favoritism/antagonism)