Jimmy Clinton Little v. State
2012 Tex. App. LEXIS 6125
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Appellant Jimmy Clinton Little pled guilty to injury to a child with five years’ deferred-adjudication probation.
- Probation terms included sex offender evaluation, no unsupervised contact with anyone under 17, random urinalysis, and full-time employment.
- In March 2008 the trial court added social networking restrictions and bans on viewing/purchasing sexually explicit material; Appellant signed acknowledging receipt.
In January 2011 Appellant was terminated from his job for pornography on his work computer; he later disclosed allegations of possible adult content.
- On April 21, 2011 counsel moved to rescind certain supplemental sex-offender conditions; the trial court denied the motion the same day.
- The State later petitioned to adjudicate guilt and revoke probation; after a hearing the court found all four alleged violations true and sentenced Appellant to ten years’ confinement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supports revocation based on viewing explicit material | Little | Little violated the condition by viewing explicit material | Yes; evidence supports the finding. |
| Whether modifying probation to add sex-offender conditions without a hearing violated due process | Little argues due process requires a hearing before modification | Court can modify conditions; preservation issue controlled | Forfeited due to acquiescence; Rickels exception not applicable. |
| Whether the remaining alleged violations affect the revocation given one true finding suffices | One violation suffices to support revocation | Multiple violations should be considered | Dispositive; ruling affirms based on one true finding; other points not reached. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984) (preponderance standard; credibility and weight of witnesses reviewed on appeal)
- Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924 (Tex.Crim.App. 1980) (any single violation may support revocation)
- Sanchez v. State, 603 S.W.2d 869 (Tex.Crim.App. 1980) (single violation suffices for revocation; standard of review)