Ulices Ivan Alcala v. State
11-14-00286-CR
| Tex. App. | Oct 20, 2016Background
- Appellant Ulices Ivan Alcala pleaded guilty to two indictments for burglary of a habitation (one with intent to commit theft); the trial court deferred adjudication and placed him on six-year deferred-adjudication community supervision in each case.
- Supervision was later modified to require placement in a Substance Abuse Felony Punishment Facility (SAFPF).
- The State moved to adjudicate guilt and revoke supervision, alleging three violations: (1) unsuccessful discharge from Clover House with 26 disciplinary entries during a 50-day stay; (2) admission of use of synthetic marijuana ("K2") on two dates; and (3) unpaid supervision fees (arrears of $948 and $287 in the two causes).
- At the revocation hearing the court found the allegations true, adjudicated Appellant guilty of both burglary offenses, and sentenced him to eight years' confinement on each count, to run concurrently.
- On appeal Appellant argued the court abused its discretion and violated his due process rights by failing properly to consider testimony from Clover House and SAFPF witnesses and by disregarding the State's recommendation of five years' confinement.
- The Court of Appeals held Appellant waived the due process complaint by failing to present it to the trial court; it affirmed the revocation and sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether revocation violated due process because the trial court failed to properly consider witness testimony and the State's 5-year recommendation | Trial court arbitrarily withdrew deferred adjudication and denied due process by not properly considering testimony/recommendation | Appellant waived the due process complaint; alternatively, revocation supported by Appellant's plea of true and witness testimony | Waived for appeal (failure to object/preserve); revocation affirmed on abuse-of-discretion review |
| Whether any alleged violation supported revocation | Implicitly argued insufficiency/erroneous consideration of evidence | Evidence and Appellant's admissions supported at least one violation; court may rely on any proven violation | Court may revoke if any allegation is supported; here record supports revocation |
| Standard of review for revocation/adjudication | N/A (procedural) | Abuse of discretion; trial court assesses witness credibility | Review under abuse-of-discretion; appellate court views evidence in light most favorable to trial court |
| Preservation requirement for due process sentencing complaints | Appellant contends sentencing due process challenge preserved | Must present timely objection to trial court and obtain adverse ruling; failure forfeits issue | Due process claim forfeited for failure to raise in trial court or motion for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Antwine v. State, 268 S.W.3d 634 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2008) (review of adjudication proceeds like revocation review)
- Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (abuse-of-discretion standard and trial court as sole judge of witness credibility in revocation)
- Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (revocation may be upheld if any alleged violation is supported)
- Benson v. State, 224 S.W.3d 485 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007) (due process complaint must be presented to trial court to preserve on appeal)
- Anderson v. State, 301 S.W.3d 276 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (due process arguments subject to forfeiture by failure to object)