Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Michael Mobley pleaded guilty in 2021 to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and received five years of deferred-adjudication community supervision. One condition required him to commit no new criminal offenses.
In June 2025, Mobley’s girlfriend, A.Y., called 911 and reported that he had hit and strangled her. Police officers and medical providers observed injuries consistent with her account, including neck swelling, facial swelling, scratches, and arm injuries. A.Y. repeatedly identified Mobley as her assailant, but at the adjudication hearing she recanted and claimed that she had injured herself in an intoxicated fall. Mobley also denied assaulting her.
The trial court found six alleged violations true, revoked Mobley’s community supervision, adjudicated him guilty of the underlying aggravated-assault offense, and sentenced him to 12 years in prison. Mobley appealed, arguing that the State had not sufficiently proved that he committed a new offense.
The Court’s Holding
The Second Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that the State proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Mobley violated his community-supervision conditions by committing at least simple assault and family-violence assault.
The court explained that the trial judge was entitled to reject A.Y.’s hearing testimony and credit her earlier statements. Her 911 report and repeated accounts to police and medical providers were corroborated by officers’ observations, medical testimony, and photographs showing injuries consistent with assault and strangulation.
Because proof of a single violation was sufficient to support revocation, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by revoking Mobley’s supervision and adjudicating him guilty.
Key Takeaways
- A victim’s later recantation does not automatically make the evidence insufficient in a community-supervision revocation proceeding.
- The trial court, as factfinder, may disbelieve a recantation and credit the witness’s earlier statements, particularly when physical and medical evidence corroborates them.
- The State needs to prove only one community-supervision violation by a preponderance of the evidence to support revocation.
Why It Matters
The opinion illustrates the substantial discretion Texas trial courts have when assessing witness credibility in revocation proceedings. A recanting complainant’s hearing testimony does not control when earlier reports are supported by contemporaneous observations, medical findings, photographs, and consistent statements to multiple people.
For practitioners, the decision underscores both the lower preponderance standard governing revocation proceedings and the importance of corroborating evidence when a domestic-violence complainant later withdraws or contradicts an accusation.