X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:In December 1992, a jury convicted appellant of indecency with a child by touching and indecency with a child by exposure. On Jan. 21, 1993, appellant was placed on 10 years’ probation. On Feb. 24, 2000, the trial court amended appellant’s probation conditions by adding several new ones. One of these amended probation conditions prohibited appellant from going “within three hundred (300) feet of any premises where children 17 years or younger congregate or gather.” The trial court revoked appellant’s probation based on its finding that appellant violated this probation condition by “intentionally and knowingly” going “within 300 feet of a premise where children 17 years or younger congregate or gather, to wit: [a specifically named elementary school].” After the trial court added the new probation condition prohibiting appellant from going within 300 feet of a premises where children 17 years or younger congregate or gather, appellant leased a home that was near an elementary school in the summer of 2000. Part of appellant’s property was within 300 feet of the school’s property line. In closing arguments to the trial court, the defense argued that there was no evidence that appellant “intentionally and knowingly” moved within 300 feet of the school since there was no evidence that appellant “even knew the school was there.” The state argued that his intent could be inferred by the fact that he moved right down the street from an elementary school. The court of appeals initially decided on direct appeal that the 300-foot probation condition was too vague to be enforced, because it did not specify how the child safety zone was to be measured from appellant’s property to the school. The Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) reversed this decision on discretionary review and decided that “[t]he only measurement that is at issue is from [appellant's] body to premises where children congregate” and that “[w]hat matters is whether [appellant] himself went within 300 feet of [the school].” The CCA also decided that “the property line of the school is . . . the proper boundary from which to measure” and that “[t]here is nothing vague about a measurement from [appellant's] body to the boundary line of the school.” The CCA remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to consider appellant’s remaining points of error. On remand, the court of appeals decided that the trial court did not abuse its discretion to revoke appellant’s probation because “the facts adduced at the [probation revocation] hearing lend support to the trial court’s finding that [appellant] went within 300 feet of the elementary school.” The CCA granted discretionary review to decide if “the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking petitioner’s probation for going within 300 feet of an elementary school when the only evidence presented was that a portion of petitioner’s property, rather than petitioner himself, was within 300 feet of the school’s property line.” Appellant argued that “there was absolutely no evidence introduced that [he] used, or was even able to use, the front door to enter his home, and no evidence physically placing him in his front yard.” The CCA understood this to mean that evidence of the padlock on appellant’s front door indicated that he used an alternative entrance to his home outside 300 feet of the school property line. Appellant’s brief on discretionary review further argued: “No witness ever physically placed Appellant himself within the 300-foot child safety zone. However, Appellant’s condition was . . . [that appellant] not go within three hundred (300) feet of any premises where children 17 years or younger congregate or gather . . . [t]he only measurement that is at issue is from [Appellant's] body to premises where children congregate.’” HOLDING:Affirmed. The CCA agreed with the court of appeals that the trial court did not abuse its discretion to find that appellant himself was on a portion of his property that brought him within 300 feet of the school’s property line where children congregate or gather. It was not unfair or unreasonable for the trial court to have inferred this ultimate fact from the basic fact that appellant’s front yard and front door were within 300 feet of this line. The court stated: “Appellant essentially asks this Court to decide that a factfinder cannot reasonably find as a basic fact that a residential property owner/lessee goes into his front yard and uses his front door. We decline to do so.” The court also noted that the record appeared to reflect that appellant’s front door was 296 feet from the school property line. “The trial court could have also reasonably found that appellant was, at some time during his probationary term, within four feet of his front door while inside his home.” The CCA found that the trial court was within its discretion to find by a preponderance of the evidence that appellant violated his probation. OPINION:Hervey, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which Keller, P.J., and Price, Womack, Johnson, Keasler, Holcomb and Cochran, J.J., joined. DISSENT:Meyers, J.

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.