Meyer v. State, 366 S.W.3d 728

Meyer, on deferred adjudication for attempted retaliation, wrote a strongly worded letter to Jefferson (TX) municipal judge relating to a minor offense.
The letter led to adjudication of guilt on the underlying offense and a sentence of fifteen months’ confinement.
On appeal, Meyer contends the evidence does not show he threatened the judge with unlawful harm or that he committed obstruction/retaliation.
The trial court’s revocation of community supervision and adjudication of guilt is challenged; the appellate court must review for abuse of discretion.
Court’s analysis focuses on whether the letter contained a threat to harm the judge and whether it threatened unlawful action; the court ultimately reverses and remands for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the letter threatened unlawful harm to the judge	Meyer argues the letter did not threaten unlawful harm	The State contends the letter conveyed a threat of harm	Insufficient evidence of unlawful-threat element
Whether the letter contained a threat to harm by unlawful act	Meyer claims only warnings of legal action; remedy of law referenced	Letter risks personal liability and harm but not unlawful action against judge	Threat to harm by unlawful act not established; only threat to harm without unlawful action
Whether the evidence supports revocation of supervision for obstruction/retaliation	Evidence shows possible threats; may support revocation	No sufficient proof of obstruction/retaliation An element missing	Because unlawful-action threat lacking, revocation not supported on this basis
Standard of review for revocation decisions	Standard favors upholding trial court if evidence preponderates	Review requires deference to trial judge on credibility and inferences	Abuse of discretion standard applied; record viewed in favor of trial court, but conclusion requires remand
Effect of the letter's context and language on threat analysis	Threats analyzed objectively by surrounding circumstances	Context does not alter the essential conclusion of no unlawful-threat	Threats may be conveyed by veiled statements; however, unlawful-action element not proven

Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759 (Tex.Crim.App.2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard for revocation of supervision; preponderance standard)
Lively v. State, 338 S.W.3d 140 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2011) (revocation review; credibility and inferences retained by fact-finder)
Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492 (Tex.Crim.App.1984) (fact-finder credibility and evidentiary resolution on review)
United States v. Orozco-Santillan, 903 F.2d 1262 (9th Cir.1990) (objective standard for evaluating threats; reasonable person interpretation)
United States v. Mitchell, 812 F.2d 1250 (9th Cir.1987) (threats may be veiled; context matters for interpretation)