Zantar Ladon Kelly v. State
05-14-00639-CR
| Tex. App. | Nov 6, 2015Background
- Appellant Zantar Ladon Kelly received deferred-adjudication community supervision in two cases: possession with intent to deliver cocaine (five years, $1,000 fine) and indecency with a child (five years, $2,500 fine).
- The State filed motions to adjudicate guilt in both causes alleging multiple supervision violations, including failure to report, unemployment, unpaid supervision/Copayment/Career Stoppers fees, contact/proximity to minors, possession of sexually oriented material, and failure to complete sex-offender treatment.
- At the May 9, 2014 adjudication hearing, probation officer Lee McClinton testified (without defense objection) that Kelly admitted a sexual assault and described facts matching a Garland police report; the Garland report identified Kelly as the perpetrator.
- McClinton also testified (without objection) that Kelly missed required reporting dates, was unemployed, and was delinquent on supervision fees and the Crime Stoppers payment, producing evidence of at least four separate violations.
- The trial court adjudicated guilt and sentenced Kelly to 25 years (possession) and 10 years (indecency). The written judgments incorrectly stated Kelly pleaded "true" to the motions; the record showed he pleaded "not true."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to adjudicate guilt / abuse of discretion | State: preponderance supported adjudication; at least one violation shown | Kelly: evidence legally insufficient to support adjudication | Court: No abuse of discretion; State proved four independent violations; any one supports adjudication |
| Confrontation Clause / hearsay from officer testifying about victim report | State: testimony permissible in revocation proceeding; no Crawford issue raised timely | Kelly: McClinton’s testimony about the police report was hearsay and violated Sixth Amendment confrontation rights | Court: Issue not preserved — no timely objection on Confrontation Clause; reviewed as waived |
| Preservation and form of objection | State: no objection during testimony; complaint raised after adjudication as hearsay only | Kelly: raised admissibility post-adjudication (hearsay) | Court: Failure to timely, specifically object waived constitutional claim |
| Clerical error in written judgment | N/A | Kelly: judgment incorrectly stated plea as "true" though he pleaded "not true" | Court: Reformed judgments to reflect plea of "not true," then affirmed as modified |
Key Cases Cited
- Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. Crim. App.) (standard of review for adjudication/revocation; preponderance of evidence)
- Sanchez v. State, 603 S.W.2d 869 (Tex. Crim. App.) (proof of a single community-supervision violation supports revocation)
- Leach v. State, 170 S.W.3d 669 (Tex. App.––Fort Worth) (same principle regarding sufficiency in revocation)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause framework)
- Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26 (Tex. Crim. App.) (appellate reformation of judgments)