Lucero Hernandez v. the State of Texas

NO. 12-22-00260-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

LUCERO HERNANDEZ, § APPEAL FROM THE 241ST
APPELLANT
§ DISTRICT COURT
V.
§ SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
APPELLEE

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Lucero Hernandez appeals her conviction for aggravated assault against a public servant
following the trial court’s revocation of her deferred adjudication community supervision. In her
sole issue, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court’s finding
that she violated the terms of her community supervision by committing the offenses of possession
of marijuana and driving while intoxicated. We affirm.
BACKGROUND

Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, Appellant pleaded “guilty” to aggravated assault
against a public servant. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Appellant “guilty,”
but deferred further proceedings and placed Appellant on community supervision for eight years.
The State subsequently filed a motion to adjudicate, which alleged numerous violations of the
terms of Appellant’s community supervision. Appellant pleaded “true” to the allegations in
paragraphs one, four through nine, and eleven through fifteen, which included failing to report on
two occasions, possessing an alcoholic beverage on three occasions, drinking an alcoholic
beverage on two occasions, failing to report contact with law enforcement to her supervision
officer within forty-eight hours, failing to report to her supervision officer within forty-eight hours
after release from jail or other confinement, and failing to submit to a random urinalysis on three
occasions.
Appellant pleaded “not true” to paragraphs two, three, and ten, which alleged that she
committed the offenses of driving while intoxicated and possession of marijuana.1 After
conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that all the allegations in the State’s motion
to adjudicate were “true,” granted the State’s motion to adjudicate, found Appellant “guilty” of
aggravated assault against a public servant, and assessed punishment at twenty years of
confinement. This appeal followed.

REVOCATION OF COMMUNITY SUPERVISION

In one appellate issue, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the
trial court’s finding that she committed new offenses of driving while intoxication and possession
of marijuana, as set forth in paragraphs two, three, and ten of the motion to adjudicate guilt.
Specifically, Appellant argues that the evidence did not establish that (1) the green, leafy substance
found in her possession was a usable quantity of marijuana rather than hemp, and (2) Appellant
was the operator of the car in which she was found to be intoxicated. Appellant asks this Court to
reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand the case to the trial court.
Applicable Law

We review a trial court’s decision to revoke community supervision and proceed with an
adjudication of guilt for an abuse of discretion. Hacker v. State, 389 S.W.3d 860, 865 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2013). At a revocation hearing, the State has the burden to establish the alleged violations by
a preponderance of the evidence. Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763-64 (Tex. Crim. App.
2006); Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Proof of a single violation of
the terms of community supervision is sufficient to support revocation. Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d
924, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980). In addition, it is well settled that a plea of “true,”
standing alone, supports revocation of community supervision. Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128
(Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979).
Analysis

As discussed above, Appellant pleaded “not true” to the allegations in the motion to
adjudicate that concerned the commission of new offenses, and six witnesses testified at the

1
Both paragraph three and paragraph ten of the motion to adjudicate allege that Appellant possessed a
controlled substance (marijuana) on February 14, 2022.

2
hearing. Appellant pleaded “true” to all the other allegations. Because proof by a preponderance
of any one of the alleged violations of the conditions of Appellant’s community supervision was
sufficient to support revocation, and Appellant pleaded “true” to numerous violations, we need not
address Appellant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court’s finding
that the allegations regarding the commission of new offenses were “true.” See TEX. R. APP. P.
47.1; Cole, 578 S.W.2d at 128. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by
revoking Appellant’s community supervision and proceeding to adjudicate her “guilty.” See
Hacker, 389 S.W.3d at 865; Rickels, 202 S.W.3d at 763. Accordingly, we overrule issue one.

DISPOSITION

Having overruled Appellant’s sole issue, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

GREG NEELEY
Justice

Opinion delivered June 30, 2023.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)

3
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JUNE 30, 2023

NO. 12-22-00260-CR

LUCERO HERNANDEZ,
Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee

Appeal from the 241st District Court
of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 241-1137-17)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and the briefs filed
herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that the judgment of the court
below should be affirmed.
It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of
the court below be in all things affirmed, and that the decision be certified to the court below for
observance.
Greg Neeley, Justice.
Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.