Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Joe Angel Hernandez pleaded guilty in four separate cases to two counts of theft of a firearm, tampering with physical evidence, and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Under negotiated plea agreements, the trial court placed him on community supervision in the theft cases and deferred-adjudication community supervision in the tampering and aggravated-assault cases.
The State later sought revocation and adjudication, alleging numerous violations. After Hernandez pleaded not true, the trial court found that he had committed new offenses, tested positive for THC, consumed alcohol, failed to complete required classes, and violated his curfew. It revoked community supervision, adjudicated guilt in the deferred-adjudication cases, and imposed concurrent sentences, including ten years’ imprisonment for tampering with physical evidence in the case corresponding to this appeal.
The Court’s Holding
Hernandez’s appointed appellate counsel filed Anders briefs and motions to withdraw, asserting that the consolidated appeals presented no meritorious or arguable issues. Hernandez did not file a pro se response. After independently reviewing the records, the Eleventh Court of Appeals agreed that the appeals lacked merit and granted counsel’s motions to withdraw.
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support every violation found true by the trial court. Because the State needed to prove only one community-supervision violation by a preponderance of the evidence, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by revoking community supervision and adjudicating guilt. The court affirmed the judgment in this appeal. In a companion theft case, it modified the judgment to delete $600 in court-appointed attorney reimbursement fees because Hernandez remained indigent and the record showed no material improvement in his finances.
Key Takeaways
- A single proven violation of a community-supervision condition is sufficient to support revocation or adjudication.
- Revocation findings are reviewed for abuse of discretion, with the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling.
- An indigent defendant cannot be assessed appointed-counsel reimbursement fees without evidence of financial resources or a material change in financial circumstances.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the limited path to reversal when the record supports multiple community-supervision violations and appointed counsel identifies no arguable appellate issue. It also confirms that appellate courts may correct an unauthorized attorney-fee assessment even when the error does not require reversal.