Latimer v. State
| Docket Number | 09-21-00275-CR |
| Decision Date | 13 July 2022 |
| Citation | 659 S.W.3d 135 |
| Parties | Chad LATIMER, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Dustin Galmor, Beaumont, for Appellant.
Wayln G. Thompson, Beaumont, Angela Mann Kneeland, for Appellee.
Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
W. SCOTT GOLEMON, Chief Justice
Chad Latimer appeals the trial court's revocation of his community supervision after he pleaded "true" to multiple violations the State alleged in its Fourth Amended Motion to Revoke. In two issues, Latimer complains (1) the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence that he violated Texas Health and Safety Code section 481.133(a) absent a warrant, and (2) Texas Health and Safety Code section 481.133(a) is facially unconstitutional. We will affirm the trial court's judgment.
Latimer pleaded guilty to the third-degree felony offense of injury to elderly, and the trial court adjudicated him guilty, sentenced him to ten years of incarceration, and required him to pay a fine and restitution. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.04. The trial court suspended imposition of the sentence and placed Latimer on community supervision. The State filed multiple motions to revoke, and ultimately, the trial court held a hearing over two separate days on the State's Fourth Amended Motion to Revoke. In that Motion to Revoke, the State alleged the following violations, among others, of the terms of his community supervision:
Latimer pleaded "true" to each of the foregoing violations except 14, to which he pleaded "not true." Latimer further indicated he understood that the trial court could revoke his probation based on that alone, and he could be sentenced to not less than two years and not more than ten. The trial court found that Latimer pleaded true knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.
Latimer moved to quash the State's Allegation 14 arguing the evidence on which the allegation was based was seized without a warrant in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Motion to Quash also asserted Texas Health and Safety Code section 481.133(a) was unconstitutional. At the continuation of the hearing, the trial court heard evidence of Allegation 14, to which Latimer had already pleaded "not true." The evidence included the testimony of Beaumont Police Officer Joshua Hall, who was involved in a traffic stop of Latimer where officers seized evidence found in the vehicle without a warrant. Officer Hall testified that they found liquid that looked like urine in a bottle wrapped in hand warmers. After Hall mirandized Latimer, he asked what was in the bottle, Latimer said it was urine he planned to use to "falsify a drug test."
At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court also found Allegation 14 "true" and noted Latimer's prior pleas of true to Allegations 1, 2, 8, 9, 11, and 17. The trial court revoked Latimer's community supervision and sentenced him to four years of incarceration. The judgment noted the allegations Latimer pleaded "true" to and did not include any reference to Allegation 14.
In his first issue, Latimer complains the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained without a warrant that he violated Texas Health and Safety Code section 481.133(a), which governs the falsification of drug test results.
See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.133(a).
We will assume without deciding that the seizure of the evidence violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and the trial court erred in admitting such evidence to substantiate Allegation 14 in the State's Fourth Amended Motion to Revoke. We turn to the question of harm. The admission of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments is constitutional error. See Hernandez v. State , 60 S.W.3d 106, 106 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (discussing Fourth Amendment); Sears v. State , 91 S.W.3d 451, 453, 455 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2002, no pet.) (characterizing violation of Fourteenth Amendment as constitutional error and requiring 44.2(a) analysis). Accordingly, under Rule 44.2(a) we must reverse the conviction unless we determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the trial court's denial of suppression did not contribute to conviction or punishment. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.2(a). For the reasons discussed below, we conclude the error, if any, was harmless.
In a revocation proceeding, the trial court is the sole judge of the witnesses’ credibility and the weight given their testimony, and we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's ruling. Hacker v. State , 389 S.W.3d 860, 865 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) ; Cardona v. State , 665 S.W.2d 492, 493 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). The State must prove the defendant violated at least one of the terms and conditions of community supervision by a preponderance of the evidence. Bryant v. State , 391 S.W.3d 86, 93 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) ; Rickels v. State , 202 S.W.3d 759, 763–64 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). If the State fails to meet its burden of proof, the trial court abuses its discretion by revoking community supervision. Cardona , 665 S.W.2d at 493–94.
One sufficient ground will support the trial court's order revoking community supervision. Smith v. State , 286 S.W.3d 333, 342 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). To prevail on appeal, an appellant must successfully challenge all findings that support the revocation order. Guerrero v. State , 554 S.W.3d 268, 274 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, no pet.). When the trial court finds several violations, we will affirm a revocation order if the State proved any one of them by a preponderance of the evidence. See Leach v. State , 170 S.W.3d 669, 672 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2005, pet. ref'd) ; see also Smith , 286 S.W.3d at 342.
On appeal, Latimer has failed to challenge all findings that support the revocation order, instead he focuses solely on Allegation 14 in the State's Fourth Amended Motion to Revoke.1 A plea of true standing alone is sufficient to support revocation. Moses v. State , 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979). Sufficient evidence shows that Latimer pleaded "true" to six alleged violations, excluding Allegation 14. Those violations included, among other things, extended periods of failing to report and leaving the area without notifying his probation officer. Latimer's pleas of "true" alone are sufficient to support the trial court's revocation order. See id. The trial court's constitutional error, if any, relating to evidence seized without a warrant in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments was harmless.
We overrule Latimer's first issue.
In his second issue, Latimer contends Texas Health and Safety Code section 481.133(a) is facially unconstitutional, arguing it is vague and overbroad. See Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.133(a). Section 481.133(a) entitled "Falsification of Drug Test Results" provides, "A person commits an offense if the person knowingly or intentionally uses or possesses with intent to use any substance or device designed to falsify a drug test result." Id. The statute further defines "drug test" as "a lawfully administered test designed to detect the presence of a controlled substance or marihuana." See id. § 481.133(c). Latimer reasons that "the only thing that makes the conduct illegal is the intent of the actor." He further contends that the "punishment of ‘intent’ alone results in ‘thought-policing’ which is surely unconstitutional" as it "is akin to stifling speech."
"Whether a statute is facially unconstitutional is a question of law that we review denovo. " Exparte Lo , 424 S.W.3d 10, 14 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). A "facial" constitutional challenge is the most difficult to bring successfully, as the claimant asserts the complained-of law is unconstitutional "on its face," meaning it operates unconstitutionally in all potential applications. Estes v. State , 546 S.W.3d 691, 697–98 (Tex. Crim. App. 2018) ; see also U.S. v. Salerno , 481 U.S. 739, 745, 107 S.Ct. 2095, 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987) ; Santikos v. State , 836 S.W.2d 631, 633 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). We begin with the presumption that the Legislature acted both rationally and validly in...
To continue reading
Request your trial