Miranda Gayle Smith AKA Miranda Gayle Keever v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: February 2, 2024
• Docket: 07-23-00134-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-23-00134-CR

MIRANDA GAYLE SMITH AKA MIRANDA GAYLE KEEVER, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 100th District Court Childress County, Texas Trial Court No. 5525, Honorable Stuart Messer, Presiding

February 2, 2024 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ.

Miranda Gayle Smith, a/k/a Miranda Gayle Keever, appeals from the trial court’s

judgment revoking her community supervision, adjudicating her guilty of possessing a

controlled substance with the intent to deliver, and assessing a twelve-year prison

sentence. She challenges the judgment through two issues, arguing 1) the evidence is

insufficient to support the decision to revoke and 2) the sentence imposed is cruel and

unusual. We affirm. Issue One

Reading the first issue and the record brings to mind the lyrics “[i]t rained all night

the day I left, the weather it was dry; [t]he sun so hot, I froze to death, Susanna, don’t you

cry.”1

Appellant argues that insufficient evidence supports the trial court’s decision

granting the motion to revoke and adjudicating guilt. This is purportedly so because the

reporter’s record illustrates that trial court relied on her pleas of true to the accusations in

the motion when she actually pleaded “not true.” The State responds by arguing that the

reporter’s record is wrong. Though it shows she pleaded “not true,” she actually pleaded

“true.” Confusion is added when one sees that elsewhere in the record appellant

acknowledged that she had not ingested controlled substances except for the two

occasions to which “you have pled true to today.” (Emphasis added). So too does one

find in the record the trial court saying, when announcing its decision, that 1) “on each of

the allegations [in the State’s motion] . . . each of those are true based upon the

defendant’s plea” and 2) “[i]t is that you have come forward and pled true . . . .”2

(Emphasis added). Thus springs our reference to “Oh! Susanna,” its inherent

contradictions, and those found in the reporter’s record.

Irrespective of whether that record accurately memorializes appellant’s plea as

true, it nonetheless contains evidence supporting the trial court’s decision to find one or

more of the allegations true and grant the State’s motion. That evidence includes

1 “Oh! Susanna,” Stephen F. Foster.

2 The judgment adjudicating guilt also reflects that appellant pleaded “true” to the State’s motion to

adjudicate.

2 testimony by the probation officer about appellant ingesting methamphetamine in 2020

after receiving community supervision. So too did appellant implicitly acknowledge (as

shown above) that she ingested illegal substances at least twice. One of the conditions

to remaining on probation obligated her to abstain from such substances.

Other evidence, to which appellant admitted, illustrated that she associated with a

felon while on community supervision. This contravened the directive to avoid persons

of harmful or disreputable character, including those previously convicted of a crime.

Appellant acknowledging that she engaged in the foregoing activity precludes us

from holding that no evidence supported the trial court’s decision to revoke probation,

adjudicate guilt, and pronounce sentence. Indeed, evidence illustrating the violation of

any one condition named in the motion provides basis to adjudicate guilt, Johnson v.

State, No. 07-22-00344-CR, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 5128, at *6 (Tex. App.—Amarillo July

7, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication), and such evidence exists.

So, we overrule issue one.

Issue Two

Next, appellant contends her twelve-year sentence was cruel and unusual. Yet,

the record fails to illustrate that she urged this complaint when sentenced or thereafter

through a motion for new trial. Having so failed, the matter was not preserved for review.

Rucker v. State, No. 07-20-00128-CR, 2021 Tex. App. LEXIS 7024, at *10 (Tex. App.—

Amarillo Aug. 25, 2021, pet. ref’d) (mem. op. not designated for publication) (so holding).

Accordingly, we overrule the issue.

3 Having overruled each issue, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Brian Quinn Chief Justice

Do not publish.