Opinion issued December 6, 2018 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-17-00379-CR ——————————— WILLIAM ROMAN, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 232nd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 1456483 OPINION William Roman appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion to quash the State’s motion to adjudicate guilt, contending that a condition of his deferred- adjudication community supervision violated the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. Because Roman failed to preserve this issue for appellate review, we affirm. BACKGROUND After pursuing his girlfriend with a gun, Roman was charged with aggravated assault of a family member, a second-degree felony. TEX. PENAL CODE § 22.02(a)(2). Roman pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of assault of a family member, a class A misdemeanor, and received two years of deferred-adjudication community supervision. Among other conditions, Roman’s community supervision prohibited him from possessing a firearm: During the term of supervision, [Roman] is strictly prohibited from shipping, transporting, possessing, or purchasing a firearm, altered firearm, or ammunition, or attempting to ship, transport, possess, receive, or purchase a firearm, altered firearm, or ammunition. Six months into Roman’s community-supervision term, a police officer making a traffic stop observed Roman throw a handgun from his car window. Roman was charged with unlawfully carrying a weapon in a motor vehicle. The State moved to adjudicate Roman’s guilt in this case, alleging that he had violated the community-supervision condition prohibiting him from possessing a firearm. The trial court dismissed the unlawful-weapon charge in light of the pending motion to adjudicate. Roman moved to quash the State’s motion to adjudicate his guilt. At the hearing, Roman conceded that he possessed a handgun, but he argued that the 2 community-supervision condition that prohibited him from possessing a firearm violated his right to possess a handgun under the Second Amendment. Absent that invalid condition, he further contended, he would not have been charged with unlawfully carrying a weapon. The trial court denied Roman’s motion to quash. Roman reserved his right to appeal that ruling, and otherwise pleaded true to violating his community- supervision conditions. The trial court revoked the community supervision, adjudicated Roman’s guilt, and assessed his punishment at 120 days in jail. DENIAL OF MOTION TO QUASH In his sole issue on appeal, Roman contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to quash the State’s motion to adjudicate guilt, because the condition of his supervision requiring him to refrain from possessing a firearm violated his Second Amendment right. The State responds that Roman did not preserve this claimed error for our review. We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion to quash a charging instrument de novo. Smith v. State, 309 S.W.3d 10, 13–14 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010); see State v. Moff, 154 S.W.3d 599, 601 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (explaining that de novo review applies when legal question’s resolution does not turn on evaluation of witness credibility and demeanor). 3 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals