The following is a summary of selected criminal opinions issued by the Third Court of Appeals from April 2024. The summary is an overview; please review the entire opinions. The subsequent history is current as of October 3, 2024.
EVIDENTIARY SUFFICIENCY – Proving Defendant’s Identity in Probation-Revocation Proceedings. Evidence was sufficient to prove that Defendant who violated probation was the person who committed the underlying offense.
Wade v. State, 693 S.W.3d 861 (Tex. App.—Austin 2024, no pet.).
Defendant Wade pled guilty to possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance and was placed on deferred adjudication probation pursuant to a plea agreement. The State later filed a motion to adjudicate, alleging various probation violations. The trial court held a hearing on the matter and found Wade guilty. The sole issue on appeal was whether the State sufficiently proved that Wade was the same person who was placed on probation. Wade argued the following: (1) the State did not introduce any evidence that Wade was placed on probation; (2) the trial judge who heard Wade’s guilty plea was not the same judge who heard the State’s motion to adjudicate guilt; (3) none of the witnesses at the adjudication hearing testified that they independently identified Wade as the same person who pled guilty; and (4) no expert testimony was presented regarding fingerprints.