Peter Eghosasere Olabode v. State
575 S.W.3d 878
| Tex. App. | 2019Background
- Peter Olabode pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery (F14-15563-J) and evading arrest (F14-55950-J); both cases were placed on eight years deferred adjudication community supervision.
- The State filed amended motions to revoke probation in both cases alleging numerous condition violations (including Conditions F, L, P, Q, R, and T among others); some allegations were later abandoned by the State.
- Olabode moved to quash the amended motions as impermissibly vague as to multiple supervision conditions; the trial court denied the motion and held a joint revocation hearing.
- The trial court found violations of Conditions F, L, P, Q, and R in both cases and additionally Condition T in the aggravated robbery case; it adjudicated guilt and sentenced Olabode to 25 years (aggravated robbery) and 10 years (evading arrest).
- Olabode also objected under the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause to admission of a probation-file summary; the probation officer who supervised him authenticated the file and testified.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that (1) Olabode did not challenge every ground supporting revocation so affirmance was required, and (2) the Confrontation Clause does not apply to revocation proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State's amended motions were impermissibly vague and the trial court erred in denying Olabode's motion to quash | Olabode: motions failed to give sufficient notice as to multiple conditions (F, L, R, etc.) | State: allegations (as amended) provided adequate notice for revocation and it abandoned certain allegations | Denied: court declined to sustain because Olabode did not challenge all violations that supported revocation; single uncontested violation (P, Q, or others) is sufficient to affirm |
| Whether the trial court erred in finding a Condition T violation after a prior allegation and modification of supervision | Olabode: Condition T finding improper because of prior allegation and subsequent modification of supervision | State: Condition T (as alleged) was a proper basis where pursued; but court noted not all alleged bases needed to be addressed | Not reached on merits: appellate court declined to consider because other unchallenged violations independently support adjudication |
| Whether admitting a summary of the probation file violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause | Olabode: the summary contained out-of-court testimonial statements by non-testifying declarants, and its admission violated his confrontation rights | State: the probation officer authenticated and testified; moreover, Confrontation Clause does not apply to revocation hearings | Overruled: Confrontation Clause inapplicable to probation revocation; admitting the probation-file summary was not error |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcia v. State, 387 S.W.3d 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (a single violation can support revocation of community supervision)
- Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (appellate courts will affirm if appellant fails to challenge each ground for revocation)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (testimonial hearsay by non-testifying declarant triggers Confrontation Clause protections)
- Wall v. State, 184 S.W.3d 730 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (discusses Crawford and confrontation analysis)
- Wisser v. State, 350 S.W.3d 161 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011) (probation revocation is not a stage of a criminal prosecution for Confrontation Clause purposes)
- Trevino v. State, 218 S.W.3d 234 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007) (same)
- Smart v. State, 153 S.W.3d 118 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2004) (same)