Minassian, Bedros Nobar
PD-1091-15
| Tex. App. | Sep 16, 2015Background
- In July 2008 Minassian pleaded guilty to felony DWI (third) and received five years community supervision (probation).
- The State filed a motion to revoke probation in June 2012 and ultimately amended the motion several times; the March 3, 2013 motion alleged, among other things, out-of-county travel (condition g) and driving without an interlock device (condition q) in February 2012.
- At the revocation hearing Minassian pleaded not true; the State did not call his supervising officer but introduced testimony from Mauricio Pacheco (custodian of records) and witnesses who said they saw Minassian driving without an interlock device and one who recalled travel from Chicago to Dallas in February 2012.
- Pacheco testified from duplicates in a probation file (paper and electronic); he had no personal knowledge of the defendant beyond the name and could not locate originals or verify all contents; the file itself was not formally marked or made part of the appellate record.
- The trial court found the State’s allegations true and sentenced Minassian to nine years’ imprisonment; the court of appeals modified the trial court’s judgment to reflect Minassian pleaded not true and affirmed the revocation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Minassian) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State proved the probationer’s identity | Testimony and evidence in the record (custodian and eyewitnesses) sufficed to identify Minassian as the probationer | Trial court had no evidence that the person before it was the same person placed on probation; identity requires proper proof/authentication and no-evidence review | Court of Appeals: identity was not raised at trial as a contested issue; viewed evidence favorably to trial court and found identity established for revocation purposes |
| Admissibility and evidentiary weight of probation file / hearsay from custodian | Custodian’s testimony about the probation file and absence of written permission supported the revocation (file kept in regular course of business) | The file was not authenticated, consisted of duplicates and computer printouts, custodian lacked personal knowledge; hearsay without proper foundation has no evidentiary value and cannot support revocation | Court of Appeals: admitted Pacheco’s testimony and relied on it plus eyewitness testimony to conclude State met preponderance standard for at least the out-of-county travel violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (probation revocation is an extension of original sentencing and judgment proof of terms is unnecessary)
- Johnson v. State, 386 S.W.3d 347 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2012) (probationer identity must be proven but failure to raise identity at trial precludes reversal on appeal)
- Smith v. State, 286 S.W.3d 333 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (proof of any one alleged probation violation suffices to support revocation)