Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Alejandro Longoria pleaded guilty to aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury. The trial court imposed a ten-year prison sentence, suspended it, and placed him on community supervision for ten years. His supervision conditions prohibited him from initiating communication with the victim, Benjamin Romero, or going within 200 feet of him. They also prohibited alcohol consumption and required payment of specified financial obligations.
Less than sixty days later, the State sought revocation, alleging that Longoria had failed to pay required fines and fees and had gone within 200 feet of Romero at a convenience store. Romero testified that Longoria spoke to him and grabbed his neck, while Longoria admitted touching Romero’s chest but denied grabbing his throat. Surveillance video showed the encounter, and Longoria acknowledged that he should have left the store. The trial court found both alleged violations, revoked community supervision, and imposed the previously suspended ten-year sentence.
The Court’s Holding
The Seventh Court of Appeals held that sufficient evidence supported the finding that Longoria violated the condition barring him from going within 200 feet of Romero. The video, Romero’s testimony, and Longoria’s own admissions showed that Longoria remained in the store, spoke to Romero, and touched him. Longoria also had been instructed three weeks earlier to return to his vehicle if he encountered Romero in a store.
Because Texas law permits revocation upon proof of a single supervision violation by a preponderance of the evidence, the proximity violation independently supported revocation. The court therefore declined to decide Longoria’s separate claim that revocation for nonpayment violated due process because he lacked the ability to pay. It affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
Key Takeaways
- A single proven violation of a community-supervision condition is sufficient to support revocation.
- The surveillance video, victim testimony, and Longoria’s admissions supported the finding that he went within 200 feet of the victim.
- The court did not decide whether the nonpayment finding violated due process because the independently sufficient proximity violation made that issue unnecessary to the disposition.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the limited scope of appellate review in community-supervision revocation cases. When the record supports one alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence, an appellate court may affirm without resolving challenges to additional grounds for revocation.
It also underscores that an unintended initial encounter does not necessarily excuse a violation when the supervisee recognizes the protected person but remains nearby and initiates further interaction despite prior instructions to leave.