Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Appellant was charged by information with the misdemeanor offense of assault-family violence in violation of Tex. Penal Code �22.01(a)(1). The complaint and information alleged Class A misdemeanor assault. The affidavit in support of the complaint included all the facts needed to allege assault-family violence. Testimony during his jury trial revealed that appellant and the complainant were engaged, had a child together, and had been living together for approximately two and a half years at the time this offense was committed. The state presented evidence that, during an argument, appellant pinned the complainant on the bed with his knee and struck her in the head twice with his fist and that, after the complainant attempted to contact the police, appellant grabbed the complainant and pushed her into the wall, causing bruises and abrasions on her upper torso. Appellant testified that he had been defending himself from the complainant’s attack. The jury convicted appellant of assault. The court of appeals affirmed. HOLDING:The court affirms the judgment of the court of appeals. In Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), the U.S. Supreme Court examined the validity of a hate-crime statute that allowed for an increased sentence if the trial judge determined, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant committed the crime with the intent to intimidate a person or group of persons because of their race, color, gender, handicap, religion, sexual orientation or ethnicity. The court determined that the statute was unconstitutional and held that, other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Here, the evidence before the trial court showed that appellant was charged with a single count of assault-family violence. There was no evidence in the record to show that appellant has previously been convicted of family violence, nor did the state attempt to prove a prior conviction at trial. The appellant was sentenced to 270 days’ confinement in the Denton County Jail, probated for a period of 18 months, and fined 500 dollars. Apprendi and its progeny are inapplicable because the punishment assessed by the trial court is well within the established statutory parameters. The appellant argues that the family-violence finding subjects appellant to additional community supervision conditions. There exists no authority for the proposition that Apprendi applies to probation conditions. Furthermore, community supervision is not part of the defendant’s sentence, and the trial court has broad discretion, not only in deciding whether to grant community supervision, but also in determining the conditions of that supervision. Speth v. State, 6 S.W.3d 530 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). None of the conditions included in appellant’s community-supervision order increased appellant’s punishment beyond the prescribed statutory maximum, thus Apprendi does not apply. OPINION:Johnson, J., delivered the court’s opinion.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.