Background
Daniel Martinez Campos Jr. pleaded no contest to misdemeanor assault causing bodily injury and received two years of deferred-adjudication community supervision. The State later sought adjudication and revocation, alleging several violations, including failure to attend and complete a state-accredited Batterer’s Intervention and Prevention Program (BIPP) and a parenting program.
At the contested hearing, Campos pleaded not true to the two allegations the State pursued. His supervision officer testified that Campos failed to provide certificates showing completion of either program and had been removed from BIPP for excessive absences. The officer also said Campos had mentioned financial difficulties and that Child Protective Services was helping him with the programs. Campos did not testify, and his counsel requested mercy and a 30-day jail term if the court revoked supervision. The trial court found the allegations true, adjudicated Campos guilty, and sentenced him to four months in county jail.
The Court’s Holding
The Thirteenth Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that Campos failed to preserve his federal due-process and equal-protection argument under Bearden v. Georgia because he never objected that revocation without an inquiry into his ability to pay was unconstitutional. His requests for mercy and a shorter sentence did not alert the trial court to that constitutional complaint.
The court also concluded that the Texas failure-to-pay statute did not apply. Bound by precedent from the Fourth Court of Appeals, from which the case had been transferred, the court explained that BIPP costs were not covered by the statute. In any event, the State proceeded on more than simple nonpayment: it alleged that Campos failed to attend BIPP, so the statute’s ability-to-pay requirement was not triggered.
Finally, the supervision officer’s testimony that Campos did not complete BIPP and was dismissed for excessive absences sufficiently established a violation of condition nineteen. Because proof of one community-supervision violation supports revocation, the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
Key Takeaways
- A probationer must timely raise a constitutional objection at the revocation hearing to preserve a claim that the court failed to examine inability to pay.
- A request for mercy or reduced confinement does not preserve a federal due-process or equal-protection challenge.
- Evidence that Campos failed to complete BIPP and was removed for excessive absences independently supported revocation, regardless of disputes about program costs.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the distinction between revocation based solely on nonpayment and revocation based on a broader failure to attend or complete a required program. When the State proves nonattendance or noncompletion, an ability-to-pay argument may not implicate Texas’s statutory protections for enumerated fees.
It also reinforces that constitutional challenges in revocation proceedings remain subject to ordinary preservation rules. Defense counsel must specifically alert the trial court to the claimed constitutional violation rather than relying on evidence of financial hardship or a general plea for leniency.