Heather Cherie Dunaway v. State

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 15, 2008
• Docket: 06-07-00152-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-07-00152-CR

HEATHER CHERIE DUNAWAY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 124th Judicial District Court

Gregg County, Texas

Trial Court No. 34619-B

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Heather Cherie Dunaway appeals the trial court's decision to revoke her community supervision for the crime of possessing more than one gram but less than four grams of methamphetamine. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.102(6) (Vernon Supp. 2007) (defining methamphetamine as penalty group 1 substance), § 481.112(c) (Vernon 2003) (criminalizing possession of penalty group 1 substances). Dunaway pleaded "true" to violating the conditions of her community supervision as alleged in the State's amended motion to revoke. Dunaway now raises two issues. We overrule both issues and affirm the trial court's judgment.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

On April 16, 2007, Dunaway pled guilty to possessing more than one gram but less than four grams of methamphetamine and reserved her right to have a jury assess her punishment. The following day, a jury was selected, considered her testimony, and ultimately assessed her punishment at ten years' imprisonment and a fine of $5,000.00. The jury further found that Dunaway has never been convicted of a felony and recommended the prison sentence be probated. ⁽¹⁾ The trial court, in reading the jury's verdict, also noted that the jury had included additional recommendations with its punishment verdict. Those recommendations included that Dunaway "[a]ttend AA and/or NA twice a week with accountability," maintain "[v]erifiable employment," "[a]ttend parenting class[es,]" be tested for illegal drug use on a monthly basis, and have monthly face-to-face meetings with a community supervision officer. The trial court then recessed the case to allow Dunaway to meet with a community supervision officer so that a presentencing report could be prepared for the trial court's consideration.

The next morning, on April 18, the trial court heard recommendations from both the Gregg County District Attorney and from Dunaway's trial counsel regarding additional conditions of community supervision. In addition to the jury's recommended conditions, the trial court further ordered that Dunaway complete four hours of community service each month, that she spend fifteen consecutive weekends in the Gregg County Jail, and that she not consume any alcohol during the period of community supervision. The trial court also imposed other "standard" conditions of community supervision that were typically ordered by the 124th Judicial District Court. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12 (Vernon Supp. 2007) (outlining community supervision available conditions).

The State subsequently filed both an application and an amended application to revoke Dunaway's community supervision. The trial court conducted a hearing on the amended application on August 16, 2007, at which Dunaway pled "true" to having violated her conditions of community supervision as alleged in the State's amended revocation motion. The trial court subsequently found the State's allegations to be "true," revoked Dunaway's community supervision, and imposed the original ten-year prison sentence and $5,000.00 fine.

II. Was the Trial Court Authorized to Impose Additional Conditions of Community Supervision?

In her first point of error, Dunaway contends the trial court's authority under Article 42.12, Section 12 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure to set the conditions of community supervision must be held to be subordinate to the jury's authority under Article 42.12, Section 4 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure to set the conditions of community supervision; based on such subordination, contends Dunaway, the trial court was without authority (and therefore erred) when it imposed an additional condition of community supervision on Dunaway that had not been recommended by the jury. The thrust of Dunaway's contention is that, because the jury did not include the requirement that Dunaway serve weekends in jail as a part of the jury's list of recommended supervision conditions, the trial court was without authority to impose such an additional condition.

Section 10 of Article 42.12 outlines a trial court's authority to impose, modify, or revoke community supervision. That provision's first sentence states, "Only the court in which the defendant was tried may grant community supervision, impose conditions, revoke the community supervision, or discharge the defendant, unless the judge has transferred jurisdiction of the case to another court with the latter's consent." Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 10(a) (emphasis added). Another provision within Article 42.12 provides,

The judge of the court having jurisdiction of the case shall determine the conditions of community supervision and may, at any time, during the period of community supervision alter or modify the conditions. The judge may impose any reasonable condition that is designed to protect or restore the community, protect or restore the victim, or punish, rehabilitate, or reform the defendant.

Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 11(a) (emphasis added).

The clear language in multiple provisions of Article 42.12 grants exclusive authority to set the conditions of community supervision to the presiding jurist of the trial court in which the defendant was tried. The jury's recommended conditions of community supervision were, therefore, just that: mere recommendations. The authority to set community supervision conditions is not, nor has it ever been, vested with a jury. Accordingly, because our law makes clear that such power lies with the trial court rather than the jury, we conclude the trial court did not err by revoking Dunaway's probated sentence based on a condition of community supervision that had not been recommended by her punishment jury but which had nonetheless been imposed by the duly authorized trial court. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 12(c); cf. Johnson v. State, 240 S.W.3d 76, 78-79 (Tex. App.--Austin 2007, pet. granted) ("Jail time as a condition of community supervision is authorized by statute and is within the trial court's discretionary authority to impose or not.").

We overrule Dunaway's first point of error.

III. Did Insufficient Evidence Support the Trial Court's Revocation Decision?

In her second point of error, Dunaway contends evidence is insufficient to support the trial court's decision to revoke her community supervision. More specifically, she argues that, because she only pled true to violating community supervision conditions that had not been recommended by the jury, because those additional conditions (added and imposed by the trial court) were "void," and because she cannot be lawfully held to have violated a "void" condition of community supervision, then her plea of "true" fails to satisfy the requirement that she violated any properly imposed condition of community supervision that originated with the jury rather than the trial court.

As stated above, our law grants exclusive authority to set the terms and conditions of community supervision with the trial court--not the jury. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, §§ 10-12. Accordingly, because such authority resides in the trial court, the trial court could lawfully impose conditions beyond those recommended by the jury. ⁽²⁾ The additional terms placed on Dunaway by the trial court, which were beyond those terms recommended by the jury, were therefore not void. They could thus form the proper basis for revocation on Dunaway's plea of "true" to having violated those terms. See Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979); Atchison v. State, 124 S.W.3d 755, 758 n.4 (Tex. App.--Austin 2003, pet. ref'd); Jones v. State, 112 S.W.3d 266, 269 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.). Dunaway's contention to the contrary is without merit.

IV. Conclusion

For the reasons stated, we overrule Dunaway's appellate issues and affirm the trial court's judgment.

Jack Carter

Justice

Date Submitted: July 14, 2008

Date Decided: July 15, 2008

Do Not Publish

1. The jury did not recommend that the fine portion of Dunaway's sentence be probated.

2. We do not believe Article 42.12 would have prohibited the trial court from ignoring any of the jury's recommendations regarding community supervision conditions, should the trial court have chosen to do so--especially in light of the trial court's legislatively imposed duty to insure that all community supervision terms are designed to "protect or restore the community, protect or restore the victim, or punish, rehabilitate, or reform the defendant." Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 11(a).

a preponderance of the evidence that she did not discover, or through the exercise of reasonable care and diligence should not have discovered Dr. Davis' letter of April 9, 2001, at any time before April 9, 2002?

The jury answered, "No."

Roberts contends that the jury question as submitted was incorrect and that the court should instead have used the question which she provided. However, her only objection at trial to the issue as submitted was that her requested instruction (not a question) was not submitted. Further, the charge was effectively the same as a proposed question submitted by Roberts. Her proposed jury question presumed that the letter was published April 9, 2001, and questioned only whether she discovered the letter before April 9, 2002. ⁽³⁾ Thus, whether the jury issue was properly submitted, as now presented for review, was not preserved for our review. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1; Tex. R. Civ. P. 274.

In a related issue, Roberts contends that the trial court should have submitted an instruction that she provided. Although it is not clear from her brief, it appears she is contending that her instruction number 15 should have been submitted because it explained how "the factor of accrual began the time limit, that factor being the publications or circulations." Neither the terms "accrual" nor "publications or circulations" are used in this question. The question is set out simply and in a straightforward fashion. We review a trial court's decision not to submit a particular instruction under an abuse of discretion review. In re V.L.K., 24 S.W.3d 338, 341 (Tex. 2000).

The jury was asked whether Roberts proved she should not have discovered the letter at any time before April 9, 2002. As the instruction would not have materially assisted the jury in deciding the matter immediately before it, the court was within its discretion to choose not to submit that instruction.

Roberts also argues that her instruction should have been given because she was suing for additional, later publications of the allegedly libelous material. She now suggests she alleged that the action of the hospital in sending a copy of Davis' letter to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in response to her claim against the hospital for an unrelated sexual harassment charge was another, different, and actionable publication for which Davis was responsible. Her petition contained only one other alleged defamatory publication, a letter dated March 7, 2002, signed by Drs. George Aydelott and Davis. This Court held in the summary judgment appeal that letter was not defamatory as a matter of law. Roberts, 160 S.W.3d at 256. Roberts' petition focused solely on the act showing that "Davis published to George Burns, the Director of Radiology, a letter of libel . . . ." Thus, other possible actionable publications, by other parties, of the letter were not before the trial court and cannot now be considered.

The contentions of error are overruled.

Sufficiency of the Evidence

Roberts also contends that the jury's finding is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence--that she proved her position as a matter of law. See O'Neil v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 542 S.W.2d 112 (Tex. 1976). When a party attacks the legal sufficiency of an adverse finding on an issue on which he or she has the burden of proof, that party must demonstrate on appeal that the evidence establishes, as a matter of law, all vital facts in support of the issue. Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237, 241 (Tex. 2001); Sterner v. Marathon Oil Co., 767 S.W.2d 686, 690 (Tex. 1989). The test for legal sufficiency is "whether the evidence at trial would enable reasonable and fair-minded people to reach the verdict under review." City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 827 (Tex. 2005). In making this determination, we credit favorable evidence if a reasonable fact-finder could, and disregard contrary evidence unless a reasonable fact-finder could not. Id. So long as the evidence falls within the zone of reasonable disagreement, we may not substitute our judgment for that of the fact-finder.  Id. at 822. The trier of fact is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to give their testimony. Id. at 819. Although we consider the evidence in a light most favorable to the challenged findings, indulging every reasonable inference that supports them, we may not disregard evidence that allows only one inference. Id. at 822.

Davis asserts that Roberts did not preserve this issue for review because she did not file any trial or post-trial motion raising such a challenge. A "no-evidence" point of error is preserved through one of the following: 1) a motion for instructed verdict, 2) a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, 3) an objection to the submission of the issue to the jury, 4) a motion to disregard the jury's answer to a vital fact issue, or 5) a motion for new trial. T.O. Stanley Boot Co. v. Bank of El Paso, 847 S.W.2d 218, 220 (Tex. 1992); Chappell Hill Bank v. Lane Bank Equip. Co., 38 S.W.3d 237, 247 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2001, pet. denied).

Roberts' motion for new trial is directed solely and specifically at a number of alleged errors in the trial. It does not state at any point that the evidence was either legally or factually insufficient to support the verdict rendered; rather, it specifies error in the way that the court presented the case to the jury for decision. There is no motion to disregard, motion for instructed verdict, or motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. There were a number of issues raised about the way in which the issue was submitted to the jury, but none of those issues suggest that there was no evidence to support submission; rather, they complain about the way in which the charge was worded. Thus, by long-standing authority, the issue of legal sufficiency has not been preserved for our review.

Further, in considering Roberts' challenge to the factual sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the jury's answer to the question before it, it is also established that to raise a factual insufficiency challenge on appeal, a point to that effect must be made in a motion for new trial. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 324(b)(2). ⁽⁴⁾ No such point was raised.

Accordingly, the issues of sufficiency to support the jury's verdict have not been preserved for our review. We do note, however, that at a bare minimum, there was evidence that Roberts was aware of the existence and publication of the letter at or very near the time of its writing and that it was thereafter in her personnel file, to which she had access. Roberts testified that she did not know if the letter was ever in her personnel file and that she never asked to see it. Even though Roberts presented evidence that she did not know of the letter until after she received a letter from the EEOC in April 2002, there is both legally and factually sufficient evidence to support the jury's answer.

The contention of error is overruled.

Excluding Counseling Record

Roberts also contends, as a part of her sufficiency claim, that the court "erred when it overruled the June Counsel." Apparently she is referring to an employee counseling session. In her argument, she discusses the versions of the evidence about the way the session was handled, and the testimony about the session in considerable detail. It appears that her actual complaint is that the court erred by overruling her offer of "the complete June counsel record."

Roberts attempted to introduce into evidence the record of the counseling session, and also several other documents added after the counseling session had occurred. ⁽⁵⁾ Davis' counsel objected to documents that were attached to the counseling session notes. Roberts advances that her responses to the session would demonstrate "silence" on the issue of notice of the letter. The court then sustained Davis' objection and declined to admit the entirety of the document. Later, the counseling session notes were introduced, but no offer of proof was made of the other documents that were excluded by the trial court. Therefore, the contents of such records and relevance to any issue before this Court cannot be determined. To challenge the exclusion of evidence, a party must: (1) attempt to introduce the evidence; (2) if an objection is made, specify the purpose for which the evidence is offered and give the trial court reasons why the evidence is admissible; (3) obtain a ruling from the court; and (4) if the court rules the evidence inadmissible, make a record, through an offer of proof, of the precise evidence the party desires admitted. Tex. R. App. P. 33.2 (providing procedure to make formal bills of exception); Tex. R. Evid. 103 (detailing effect of an erroneous evidentiary ruling and requiring an objection and offer of proof for excluded evidence); see Fletcher v. Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co., 57 S.W.3d 602 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, pet. denied). The alleged error has not been preserved.

We affirm the judgment.

Date Submitted: September 4, 2007

Date Decided: November 1, 2007

1. Roberts v. Davis, 160 S.W.3d 256 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2005, pet. denied).

2. The April 9, 2001, letter accuses Roberts of violations of state and federal law, repetitious and malicious illegal malpractice, manufacture of false reasons for violating orders, and illegally practicing medicine. See Roberts, 160 S.W.3d at 262.

3. Since no objection was made to the relevant dates (April 9, 2001 to April 9, 2002), we express no opinion as to the propriety of those dates.

4. Although the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure do not require a motion for new trial to preserve many issues, the rules do require a motion for new trial to preserve factual sufficiency challenges. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 324(b); Roberson v. Collins, 221 S.W.3d 239, 242 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.); Kinder Morgan N. Tex. Pipeline, L.P. v. Justiss, 202 S.W.3d 427, 450 (Tex. App.--Texarkana 2006, no pet.).

5. The record indicates that those documents were a written response prepared by Roberts after the session and letters from two physicians that Roberts had placed in the file. Those were all dated after the date of the counseling session.