Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jose M. Portalatin pleaded guilty to criminal mischief and stalking. In 2022, the trial court deferred adjudication and placed him on community supervision for four years. His conditions included no contact with his former wife, the complainant in the stalking case, and GPS monitoring with exclusion zones. The court released him from GPS monitoring in April 2023.
After the State later alleged that Portalatin had violated the no-contact condition, it agreed to dismiss its petition to adjudicate if he accepted GPS monitoring with exclusion zones for the remainder of his supervision. Portalatin signed the amended condition but refused to continue with installation after learning that the exclusion zones were more restrictive than he expected. The trial court found that violation true, adjudicated him guilty, and imposed concurrent sentences of 24 months in a state-jail facility for criminal mischief and four years’ imprisonment for stalking.
The Court’s Holding
The Seventh Court of Appeals affirmed. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, it held that the State proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Portalatin violated the amended supervision condition. The condition required GPS monitoring with exclusion zones, not merely unrestricted GPS monitoring, and both Portalatin’s testimony and the supervision officer’s testimony established that he refused to comply with the exclusion-zone component.
The court also rejected Portalatin’s contention that the trial court punished him for exercising due process rights. He did not present an explicit due process objection below, so any constitutional complaint was forfeited. In any event, the record showed that adjudication rested on his refusal to comply with the GPS condition, not on an assertion of constitutional rights.
Key Takeaways
- A single proven violation of a community-supervision condition can support adjudication of guilt.
- Agreement to GPS monitoring “with exclusion zones” requires compliance with the exclusion-zone component, even if the specific zones later prove inconvenient or more restrictive than anticipated.
- A defendant generally forfeits a due process argument by failing to raise it in the trial court.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that Texas courts treat an amended supervision condition according to its full terms. A probationer cannot claim compliance with GPS monitoring while refusing an expressly required exclusion-zone component.
It also illustrates the importance of preserving constitutional objections during adjudication proceedings. General complaints about the burden imposed by a supervision condition may not preserve a due process claim for appellate review.