Mirola, Salvador Fernandez
PD-0839-15
Tex. App.Jul 7, 2015Background
- Mirola pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine), with three years deferred adjudication community supervision.
- State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt based on alleged violations within a week of commencing deferred adjudication.
- Trial court granted the State’s motion, adjudicated guilt, and sentenced Mirola to 24 months’ confinement in a state jail facility.
- Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment on direct appeal.
- Mirola challenged (1) admission of an unauthenticated police DVD, and (2) sufficiency of the evidence to support the community supervision revocation.
- Appellate court affirmed, and the petition for discretionary review followed to challenge authentication and evidence sufficiency
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the DVD was properly authenticated before admission | Mirola argues the DVD was unauthenticated per Rule 901(a) | State contends proper authentication through appearance, contents, and witness testimony supported admission | DVD properly authenticated; admission not an abuse of discretion |
| Sufficiency of evidence to support violation of community supervision | Mirola contends evidence failed to prove all alleged violations | State asserts preponderance of the evidence showed violation of Condition 1 (possession) | Evidence showed a preponderance of the evidence supported adjudication for violation of Condition 1; other alleged violations not required |
| Standard of review for revocation and admissibility of evidence | Mirola challenges the standard applied to authentication and revocation | State relies on standard of abuse of discretion for authentication and preponderance of evidence for revocation | Courts review authentication as abuse of discretion; revocation by preponderance of the evidence; applied accordingly |
Key Cases Cited
- Tienda v. State, 358 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (authentication may be shown by circumstantial evidence and appearance/contents)
- Druery v. State, 225 S.W.3d 491 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (ultimate question whether evidence is what proponent claims is for the fact-finder)
- Campbell v. State, 382 S.W.3d 545 (Tex. App.—Austin 2012, no pet.) (recognizes non-strict hurdles to authentication and use of voice identification)
- Sanchez v. State, 603 S.W.2d 869 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (violation of a single condition suffices to support adjudication)
- Antwine v. State, 268 S.W.3d 634 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2008) (preponderance standard for revocation proceedings)
- Garrett v. State, 619 S.W.2d 172 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981) (revocation review in community supervision proceedings)
- Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (burden and proof standard in supervision cases)
- Tienda v. State, 358 S.W.3d 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (authentication may be satisfied by direct or circumstantial evidence)