Milton Cardell Parker v. State

Opinion issued March 31, 2005. In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-03-01347-CR ___________ MILTON CARDELL PARKER, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 208th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 841581 MEMORANDUM OPINION The State filed a motion to revoke appellant’s, probation, claiming that he had violated the terms and conditions of his probation. After finding the allegations to be true, the trial court revoked appellant’s probation and assessed a $750 fine and confinement for five years in prison. In one point of error, appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his probation. We affirm. Background Appellant received eight years probation for possession of a controlled substance. Appellant testified that he violated the terms and conditions of this probation by committing a new offense, evading arrest. After appellant pleaded true, the State introduced the following evidence. Houston Police Officer J. Vasquez testified that, on September 8, 2003, he was on patrol and, upon seeing appellant’s car, discovered that appellant “had warrants registered to his license plate.” When Vasquez first attempted to stop him, appellant would not stop, and “he evaded for approximately several blocks.” Appellant “went through several stop signs, stoplights and also went through an individual’s yard . . . and continued to pursue on foot evading from” Vasquez and his partner. The “chase” began on a major intersection and continued through a residential neighborhood with speeds exceeding 60 to 70 miles per hour. Appellant testified that he ran from the police because he “got scared” and “panicked.” Probation Revocation We review an order revoking probation for abuse of discretion. Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984); Marcel v. State, 64 S.W.3d 677, 679 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, pet. ref’d). Regardless of the reasons given by the trial judge for revoking probation, if evidence supports the judge’s decision, that decision will not be disturbed on appeal. Jackson v. State, 508 S.W.2d 89, 90 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974). On appeal, appellant admits that he evaded arrest, but asserts that he had a “valid explanation or defense to the allegation”—he “panicked, was afraid of losing all he had worked so hard for, and was attempting to hire an attorney to assist him.” We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking appellant’s probation. Conclusion We affirm the trial court’s judgment. George C. Hanks, Jr. Justice Panel consists of Justices Taft, Keyes, and Hanks. Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).