571 S.W.3d 317
Tex. App.2018Background
- Roman pleaded guilty to a reduced charge (assault of a family member, Class A misdemeanor) and received two years of deferred-adjudication community supervision.
- A supervision condition prohibited Roman from shipping, transporting, possessing, or purchasing any firearm or ammunition.
- Six months into supervision, an officer observed Roman discard a handgun during a traffic stop; he was charged with unlawfully carrying a weapon in a motor vehicle.
- The State moved to adjudicate (revocation) based on the alleged firearm-possession violation; the separate unlawful-weapon charge was dismissed pending adjudication.
- Roman moved to quash the State’s motion to adjudicate, arguing the firearm-possession condition violated his Second Amendment right; the trial court denied the motion, revoked supervision after Roman pleaded true, adjudicated guilt, and sentenced him to 120 days in jail.
Issues
| Issue | Roman's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by denying Roman’s motion to quash based on a claimed Second Amendment violation of a supervision condition | The firearm-possession prohibition on community supervision violated Roman’s Second Amendment right; the right is systemic/intolerable and not subject to waiver, so he need not have objected earlier | Roman forfeited/waived the challenge by accepting supervision conditions without timely objection; community supervision is a contractual privilege and conditions must be invoked at the time they are imposed | Court held Roman waived the challenge; denial of the motion to quash affirmed |
| Whether revocation was supported by the record | (implicit) If the motion to quash were valid, revocation would be illegitimate | Roman stipulated to possessing the firearm and pleaded true to the motion; only one proven ground is required for revocation | Revocation was supported: Roman’s stipulation/plea provided a preponderance-of-the-evidence basis for revocation |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. State, 309 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (standard of review for legal questions on motions to quash)
- Moff, 154 S.W.3d 599 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (de novo review when credibility not at issue)
- Ex parte Heilman, 456 S.W.3d 159 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (classification of constitutional rights for preservation)
- Marin v. State, 851 S.W.2d 275 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (framework for waiver and preservation)
- Mendez v. State, 138 S.W.3d 334 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (complaints forfeited by failure to comply with preservation rule)
- Ex parte Beck, 541 S.W.3d 846 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (constitutional challenges can be forfeited when they do not implicate trial-court authority)
- Grado v. State, 445 S.W.3d 736 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (intermediary rights requiring express waiver)
- Dansby v. State, 448 S.W.3d 441 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (acceptance of supervision conditions forfeits later complaints)
- Speth v. State, 6 S.W.3d 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (defendant forfeits complaints by failing to object to conditions)
- Gutierrez v. State, 380 S.W.3d 167 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (distinguishing nonwaivable systemic rights where court authority is implicated)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (recognition that the Second Amendment secures an individual right but is not unlimited)
- Ex parte Lo, 424 S.W.3d 10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (First Amendment decision referenced in Beck)
- Karenev v. State, 281 S.W.3d 428 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (forfeiture of constitutional complaints)
- Akbar v. State, 190 S.W.3d 119 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005) (only one proven ground by preponderance is required to revoke supervision)