Trevares Vonn Taylor v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: June 4, 2024
• Docket: 07-23-00374-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-23-00374-CR

TREVARES VONN TAYLOR, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 106th District Court Lynn County, Texas Trial Court No. 22-3601, Reed A. Filley, Presiding

June 4, 2024 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and DOSS, JJ.

Trevares Vonn Taylor appeals from the trial court’s judgment revoking his deferred

adjudication community supervision, adjudicating him guilty of indecency with a child by

sexual contact, and imposing sentence. Through four issues, he contends the trial court

erred in finding sufficient evidence to revoke his community supervision. We affirm.

Background

Appellant was charged with one count of indecency with a child by sexual contact

and pleaded guilty in exchange for deferring the adjudication of guilt. As part of his community supervision, he was required to abide by certain terms and conditions to which

he voiced no objection.

The State moved to adjudicate appellant’s guilt not long thereafter. At the hearing

on the motion, the State proffered the testimony of appellant’s community supervision

officer. She said she spoke with appellant after being granted community supervision,

explained the terms of and conditions to his continued probation, and explained the

consequences of violating them. According to the witness, appellant violated several of

them. They included his failure to 1) transfer or surrender any firearms to a local law

enforcement agency and provide verification thereof by the requisite date; 2) reside more

than 1,000 feet from a place where children commonly gather; 3) pay costs, fines, and

fees as required; and 4) complete community service hours.

Appellant testified on his own behalf. Among other things, he told the court he 1)

moved several times in an attempt to be compliant, 2) transferred the firearms he owned

to a friend of his in Oklahoma, 3) admitted he did not provide proper verification of the

transfer by the required date, and 4) acknowledged that he had yet to perform any

community service hours.

At the close of the hearing, the court found that appellant violated several terms

and conditions as alleged by the State and adjudicated him guilty of indecency with a

child by sexual contact. Appellant then received a prison sentence of 20 years.

Standard of Review

We review a trial court’s decision to adjudicate guilt under the standard of abused

discretion. Green v. State, Nos. 07-19-00411-CR, 07-19-00412-CR, 07-19-00413-CR,

2021 Tex. App. LEXIS 5589, at *7 (Tex. App.—Amarillo July 14, 2021, pet. ref’d) (mem.

2 op., not designated for publication). The standard, as we described in Green, is applied

here. So too must we remember that a single violation supports revocation. Id. at *7-8.

Application

The trial court found that appellant violated condition #1, among others. Under

condition #1, the court obligated him to “[o]bey all orders of this Court and the Community

Supervision Officer.” One such order consisted of the written direction by a community

supervision officer dated April 28, 2023. It pertained to firearms appellant owned and

bore the signature of both the officer and appellant. Through it, the officer said appellant

was “required to provide a notarized letter indicating that there are no firearms or

ammunition in your residence or possession . . . indicate to whom (or what agency) you

transferred possession of the above listed items . . . [and] provide this verification no later

than the close of business on 5-1-23.” At the hearing, the State asked appellant: “[i]s it

correct that you did not provide documentation of a transfer or transfer your weapons and

ammunition by May 1st?” He answered: “[y]es, ma’am.” That is some evidence upon

which the trial court could reasonably find that appellant violated condition #1. Appellant

argues otherwise, though.

Allegedly, the directive from the supervision officer failed to comply with the terms

of article 42A.052 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That statute addresses

modifications to probationary conditions. The argument is of no consequence, however.

First, it was not broached to the trial court. Thus, it was not preserved for review. TEX.

R. APP. P. 33.1 (requiring preservations of complaints in the trial court). Second, it was

not a modification of any prior probationary term issued by the trial court. Rather, it was

an order of the community supervision officer, and the trial court had already mandated 3 compliance with “all orders of this Court and the Community Supervision Officer.”

(Emphasis added).

Irrespective of whether we may believe the circumstances warranted the

adjudication of guilt, the ultimate decision lay with the trial court. And, it had evidence of

at least one violation upon which it could decide to grant the State’s motion. Therefore,

we overrule appellant’s issues and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Brian Quinn Chief Justice

Do not publish.