Lavalle Johnson v. State
386 S.W.3d 347
| Tex. App. | 2012Background
- Indictment for murder returned December 2001.
- Guilty plea entered April 2003; court deferred adjudication and placed Johnson on community supervision for 10 years.
- 2005: trial court modified terms of community supervision following State’s motion to proceed to adjudication.
- September 2010: State filed second motion to proceed to adjudication alleging violation of two terms: possessing controlled substances and possessing a firearm.
- Court held a hearing, found violations by preponderance, adjudicated Johnson guilty of murder, sentenced to 75 years, and ordered reimbursement of Potter County court-appointed attorney's fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Identity of the defendant at revocation | Johnson identified himself as the same person subject to the 2003 order. | State failed to prove Johnson was the same individual reflected in the judgment. | No abuse of discretion; sufficient evidence Johnson was the same person. |
| Attorney's fees assessment | State seeks $750 via prior agreement; $1,400 challenged as unsupported. | Johnson indigent; no financial ability shown to offset fees. | Fees reversed and wholly deleted; modify judgment to remove attorney's fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- Antwine v. State, 268 S.W.3d 634 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2008) (standard of review for revocation and identity is by preponderance)
- Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (burden on State to prove violations in revocation proceedings)
- Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (identity proof at revocation; must show same person as in judgment)
- Hillburn v. State, 627 S.W.2d 546 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1982) (identity issue considered on appeal if not raised below)
- Kent v. State, 809 S.W.2d 664 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1991) (defendant’s self-identification can establish identity)
- Pettit v. State, 662 S.W.2d 427 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1983) (recognizes similar identity proof in revocation context)
- Mayer v. State, 309 S.W.3d 552 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (indigence and ability to pay fees; requires evidence of ability to offset costs)
- Barrera v. State, 291 S.W.3d 515 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2009) (requires factual basis for financial determinations)
- Cherry v. State, 215 S.W.3d 917 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007) (probation officer testimony can establish identity)