Summary
The Fifth District Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed the revocation of Dalton Lamont Cross’s community supervision in two criminal cases involving theft and possession of methamphetamine. The court held that sufficient evidence supported the revocations and that the trial court did not improperly assess duplicative court costs; it modified one judgment to identify an additional violated supervision condition.
Holdings
- The evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's finding that Cross violated the aftercare condition of community supervision, and the trial court therefore did not abuse its discretion by revoking supervision.
- The trial court did not improperly assess duplicative court costs because the challenged amounts were assessed in the earlier proceedings following Cross's original convictions, not in a single proceeding involving multiple convictions.
- The appellate court had authority to modify the judgment in the possession case to state that Cross violated conditions N and Q, because the record supplied the information necessary to correct the judgment and reflect the trial court's findings.
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by revoking Cross's community supervision because the evidence was insufficient to establish violations of the supervision conditions.
- Whether the trial court improperly assessed duplicative court costs in the two cases.
- Whether the appellate court could modify the judgment in the possession case to identify both conditions that the trial court found Cross violated.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (7)
- Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763-64 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006)(followed)
- Newhouse v. State, No. 05-14-01628-CR, 2015 WL 7720462, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 30, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication)(followed)
- Garrett v. State, 619 S.W.2d 172, 174 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1981)(followed)
- Cherry v. State, No. 05-10-00751-CR, 2011 WL 783634, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 8, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication)(followed)
- Sanchez v. State, 603 S.W.2d 869, 871 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980)(followed)
- Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27-28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993)(followed)
- Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529-30 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, pet. ref'd)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…