Aaron Ray Morris v. the State of Texas

Summary

The Texas Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District, affirmed, as modified, the judgment adjudicating Aaron Ray Morris’s guilt and revoking his deferred-adjudication community supervision. The court held that Morris failed to preserve his due-diligence defense, that testimony regarding positive urinalyses was sufficient to establish a supervision violation, and that the record did not show an order requiring him to pay appointed-counsel fees. The court modified the judgment to reflect only the community-supervision violations orally found by the trial court.

Holdings

1. A defendant must specifically invoke the statutory due-diligence affirmative defense in the trial court to preserve appellate review of whether supervision officers exercised due diligence. Counsel's oblique statement that officers had 'given up' on Morris did not specifically invoke the defense or satisfy Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 33.1(a)(1).
2. A community-supervision officer's testimony that the defendant tested positive for narcotics is sufficient, by itself, to prove a community-supervision violation by a preponderance of the evidence; documentary drug-test results or an admission of drug use are not required.
3. An appellate court may modify an incorrect judgment to conform it to the trial court's oral findings when the record supplies the necessary information. The judgment was properly modified to reflect only violations of paragraphs 2 and 4 and to delete violations of paragraphs 10, 11, and 12.
4. The appellate court would not find error based on an alleged appointed-counsel fee obligation where the record did not establish that the trial court ordered Morris to pay those fees.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Morris preserved and established the statutory due-diligence affirmative defense to revocation based on failure to report.
2. Whether a community-supervision officer's testimony that Morris tested positive for narcotics was legally sufficient to prove a supervision violation without documentary drug-test evidence or an admission of drug use.
3. Whether the judgment adjudicating guilt should be modified to reflect only the supervision violations orally found by the trial court.
4. Whether the trial court imposed an obligation requiring Morris to reimburse appointed-counsel fees despite his indigence.

Disposition

affirmed