Jessica Briggle v. State, 06-15-00041-CR

Background

Jessica Briggle pleaded guilty to four counts of forgery and received deferred-adjudication community supervision beginning February 19, 2010, with various standard and special conditions (including abstaining from drugs/alcohol, reporting in person, paying restitution/fees, and submitting to drug tests).
The trial court modified supervision several times (added attorney fees, required alcohol/drug assessment and counseling, placed her at a women’s recovery center, extended supervision dates, and later required treatment at a SAFPF).
The State filed motions to proceed to adjudication alleging multiple violations (drug and alcohol use, failure to complete counseling, and various fee-payment delinquencies); Briggle pleaded not true at the 2015 hearing.
At the hearing, the community supervision officer (Thrasher) testified and the State introduced a signed written admission by Briggle that she used methamphetamine on July 4, 2014 (State’s Exhibit 1), admitted without objection.
The trial court found Briggle violated the condition to avoid dangerous drugs based solely on the signed admission, adjudicated her guilty of the four forgery counts, and sentenced her to concurrent 24-month terms (suspended and returned to community supervision with treatment conditions).
Briggle appealed, arguing the evidence was insufficient because the trial court relied on unobjected-to hearsay and that State’s Exhibit 1 was not properly authenticated as a business record under Rule 803(6).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Briggle)	Held
Whether evidence supported revocation based on drug-use admission	State: the signed admission and supervision officer testimony constituted probative evidence to prove a violation by a preponderance.	Briggle: the signed admission was inadmissible hearsay and not properly authenticated as a Rule 803(6) business record.	Held: Admission was received without objection and thus had probative value; sufficient to support revocation.
Whether unobjected-to hearsay can support revocation	State: unobjected-to hearsay may be considered by the trial court and has probative value.	Briggle: Frazier and rules prohibit hearsay as the basis for revocation; reliance on hearsay is reversible error.	Held: Court follows Frazier/Fernandez—unobjected-to hearsay may be considered; revocation not an abuse of discretion.
Whether State’s Exhibit 1 required additional authentication as a business record	State: Thrasher testified generally that records were kept in the ordinary course; exhibit admitted without objection.	Briggle: lack of specific chain-of-custody/verification and absence of custodian testimony meant no proper Rule 803(6) foundation.	Held: Failure to object forfeited the authentication complaint; no need to decide admissibility on the merits.
Whether proof of any single violation suffices for revocation	State: one proven violation suffices to revoke deferred adjudication.	Briggle: because the exhibit was inadmissible, no proven violation exists.	Held: A voluntary signed admission alone is sufficient; one proven violation supports revocation.

Key Cases Cited

Frazier v. State, 600 S.W.2d 271 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (unobjected-to hearsay testimony may have probative value and support revocation)
Fernandez v. State, 805 S.W.2d 451 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (trial court may consider hearsay admitted without objection like other evidence)
Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (State must prove violation by preponderance at revocation)
Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (failure to meet burden is an abuse of discretion)
Wade v. State, 83 S.W.3d 835 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002) (defendant’s voluntary confession alone can support revocation)