Whiskey Williams v. State
02-16-00200-CR
| Tex. App. | Apr 27, 2017Background
- Williams pleaded guilty to manslaughter and received five years deferred adjudication supervision; the State later moved to adjudicate guilt based on alleged supervision violations.
- The motion alleged multiple violations including: committing new offenses (possession and delivery of marijuana), failing to complete required community service hours, failing drug tests, failing a timely drug/alcohol evaluation, and failing to attend offense-specific counseling.
- Evidence: probation officer testified Williams missed community service, drug tests, evaluation, and counseling; police testified to a traffic stop where a bag containing about one ounce of suspected marijuana was seized; a controlled buy produced 14 grams of marijuana.
- At the adjudication hearing the State presented testimony before Williams entered a plea to the motion; Williams ultimately waived reading of the motion and pled not true.
- The trial court found multiple violations true (including several non-challengeable supervision conditions) and adjudicated Williams guilty, sentencing him to 13 years’ confinement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether due process was violated because the court heard testimony before Williams entered a plea to the motion to adjudicate | Williams: hearing testimony before his plea undermined his awareness and ability to defend, so due process was violated | State: precedent permits evidence before plea in revocation/adjudication proceedings; no due-process violation shown | Court: No due-process violation; declined to reexamine controlling precedent (followed Detrich) — issue overruled |
| Whether evidence was insufficient to prove Williams committed new offenses (possession/delivery of marijuana) in violation of supervision condition | Williams: testimony was not credible/insufficient to prove possession or delivery | State: police and detective testimony supported possession at stop and controlled buy | Court: Did not reach merits because unchallenged violations (community service, testing, evaluation, counseling) alone suffice to support adjudication — issue overruled |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for asking if lab confirmed substance was marijuana (eliciting weak evidence) | Williams: counsel’s question failed to protect him and amounted to ineffective assistance undermining conviction | State: even if the question was problematic, other unchallenged violations provided sufficient basis for adjudication | Court: Ineffective-assistance argument not addressed on merits because adjudication was supported by other uncontested violations — issue overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Detrich v. State, 545 S.W.2d 835 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977) (due process does not require plea before evidence in probation revocation)
- Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (standard of review for revocation is abuse of discretion)
- Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (trial court is sole judge of witness credibility in revocation proceedings)
- Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (State must prove violation by preponderance of evidence)
- Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (proof of any one violation suffices to revoke supervision)
- Sanchez v. State, 603 S.W.2d 869 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (same: single proved violation supports revocation)