John K. Marlon v. State
04-17-00319-CR
Tex. App.Dec 13, 2017Background
- Appellant John Marlon had community supervision for two possession convictions; the State moved to revoke for failure to report in April and May 2016.
- Supervision terms required monthly reporting but contained no specified start date, location, or exact schedule.
- Probation officer Gerardo Morales testified Marlon failed to report in April and May 2016 based on the probation office’s computer/security monitor records.
- Marlon testified he provided a document showing a new address, expected a transfer and a new appointment notice, and disputed receiving notice of required reporting dates.
- The trial court found the violation true, revoked community supervision, and sentenced Marlon to concurrent six-month terms; the court stated it would impose the statutory minimum (180 days) but judgments reflected six months and recorded pleas as “true.”
- On appeal Marlon argued (1) insufficiency of evidence to revoke, (2) ineffective assistance of counsel, and (3) clerical errors in the judgments (plea entry and punishment). The court reformed the judgments and affirmed as reformed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Marlon) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to revoke supervision | Morales’s testimony and probation records show Marlon did not report in April–May 2016; meets preponderance standard | Terms were vague about when/where to report; State failed to prove Marlon knew reporting requirements or actually missed April–May | Affirmed: evidence (security/office records and credibility findings) supported revocation under abuse-of-discretion review |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | N/A (State defended conviction) | Counsel failed to cross-examine Morales, call witnesses, or question Marlon; cumulative errors deprived Marlon of fair hearing | Rejected: record silent on trial strategy; no showing counsel’s conduct was so outrageous or prejudicial under Strickland |
| Clerical errors in judgments (plea and punishment) | N/A (State agreed) | Judgments incorrectly state plea as “true” and punishment as six months instead of 180 days | Reformed: judgments amended to show plea “NOT TRUE” to motion to revoke and punishment of 180 days; affirmed as reformed |
| Standard of review for revocation | N/A | N/A | Reinforced: revocation reviewed for abuse of discretion; State must prove violation by preponderance of evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. Crim. App.) (abuse of discretion standard for revocation)
- Hacker v. State, 389 S.W.3d 860 (Tex. Crim. App.) (State must prove violation by preponderance; trial court judges credibility)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance test)
- Goodspeed v. State, 187 S.W.3d 390 (Tex. Crim. App.) (claims of ineffective assistance on direct appeal require record support; cannot infer strategy)
- French v. State, 830 S.W.2d 607 (Tex. Crim. App.) (appellate courts may reform judgments to reflect the truth)