Ricci Darrell Love Jr. A/K/A Ricci Darrell Love v. State
08-13-00128-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 19, 2016Background
- Appellant Ricci Darrell Love, Jr. was on five years deferred adjudication (probation) for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and was alleged to have violated probation by committing new offenses on November 15, 2012.
- The State alleged four relevant violations: robbery (with a firearm), theft by threat, burglary of a habitation with intent to commit aggravated robbery, and possession of a firearm; the possession allegation was found not true by the trial court.
- Two eyewitnesses/victims (Phillip Sadler and Carl Fleetwood) testified that Love (identified as “Slim”) and an accomplice burst into a motel room, threatened them with guns, took a safe and cell phones, and fled to a gray two-door Mustang.
- Surveillance video showed two males (one tall wearing a red/black checked shirt) rushing into and out of a motel room in ~40–45 seconds and a gray Mustang entering and leaving; the abandoned Mustang, a safe, two cell phones, a simulated training gun, and a .45 semi-automatic were recovered near the scene shortly thereafter.
- Officers located and detained Love within about an hour near the abandoned Mustang; witnesses and officers identified Love and his clothing, and Sadler positively identified Love at the scene.
- The trial court weighed witness credibility, considered inconsistencies and possible motives (drug/gambling disputes), found the eyewitnesses credible enough, determined Love violated probation by committing robbery (and as a party to the theft/burglary allegations), and adjudicated him guilty; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency to support revocation for robbery | State: Sadler and Fleetwood positively ID'd Love; video, abandoned Mustang, recovered safe/phones/weapons and proximity/time corroborate | Love: eyewitnesses are not credible and their testimony lacks significant corroboration | Affirmed: preponderance of credible evidence supports revocation for robbery |
| Sufficiency to support revocation for aggravated robbery (threat/use of deadly weapon) | State: victims testified they were threatened with a firearm; weapons recovered in vehicle consistent with descriptions | Love: inconsistent witness statements and lack of direct linkage of recovered firearms to Love render evidence insufficient | Affirmed as to aggravated-robbery-related allegations (court found party liability to support paragraphs 2 & 3) |
| Sufficiency to support revocation for burglary of a habitation | State: forced entry shown on video, timing, flight to vehicle, recovered safe near scene support burglary with intent to commit robbery | Love: argues alternate explanations (dispute over stolen property/drugs) and unreliable eyewitnesses | Affirmed: court found by preponderance that Love participated in burglary as charged |
Key Cases Cited
- Hacker v. State, 389 S.W.3d 860 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (standard of review and proof in probation-revocation proceedings)
- Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (probation-revocation review principles)
- Cantu v. State, 842 S.W.2d 667 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (abuse-of-discretion standard)
- Caddell v. State, 605 S.W.2d 275 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (limits on revocation for violations beyond allegations)
- Pickett v. State, 542 S.W.2d 868 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976) (same)
- Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 851 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (burden of proof by preponderance at revocation)
- Little v. State, 376 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012) (revocation proof standard application)
- Black v. State, 411 S.W.3d 25 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (acquittal does not preclude revocation)
- Canseco v. State, 199 S.W.3d 437 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006) (revocation standard contrasts criminal trial)
- Polk v. State, 729 S.W.2d 749 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (acquittal vs. probation revocation distinction)
- Ex parte Lane, 806 S.W.2d 336 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1991) (same)
- Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (proof of any one violation suffices to revoke)
- Sanchez v. State, 603 S.W.2d 869 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (same)
- Cherry v. State, 215 S.W.3d 917 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007) (review in light most favorable to court's ruling)
- Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (failure to meet burden makes revocation an abuse of discretion)
Disposition: Affirmed (trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking community supervision and adjudicating guilt).