Background
Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, Troy DeLano Cheek Jr. pled guilty to evading arrest and detention with a motor vehicle, a third-degree felony under Texas Penal Code § 38.04(a), (b)(1)(B). The trial court deferred further proceedings without entering an adjudication of guilt, placed Cheek on community supervision for ten years, and ordered him to pay a $500 fine. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Cheek’s unadjudicated community supervision, alleging two violations of his supervision conditions.
At the November 13, 2024 revocation hearing, Cheek pleaded “true” to the second alleged violation—failure to pay probation fees—but “not true” to the first violation, which alleged he committed the offense of murder on February 24, 2024. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found the first allegation “true,” revoked Cheek’s community supervision, adjudicated him guilty of the underlying evading arrest offense, and sentenced him to ten years in prison. The trial court made no finding regarding the second alleged violation, and it was not included in the Judgment Adjudicating Guilt. Cheek timely appealed, challenging only the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the murder finding.
The Court’s Holding
The Ninth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The court explained that appellate review of an order adjudicating guilt is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its discretion. In revocation proceedings, the State bears the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of community supervision. The evidence meets this standard when the greater weight of the credible evidence creates a reasonable belief that a violation occurred. The appellate court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s order, recognizing that the trial court serves as the sole trier of fact, judge of witness credibility, and arbiter of the weight to give testimony. Furthermore, the State need only establish one sufficient ground to support revocation.
Applying these standards, the court held that legally sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s finding that Cheek committed murder. The evidence established that on February 24, 2024, police responded to a shooting at a Beaumont apartment and discovered a deceased male victim. Officers found a bullet hole in the window and 9-millimeter casings outside. A female witness told officers that she and Cheek had previously dated, that he had broken into her apartment before, and that he had texted her earlier that day stating, “I am going to show you.”
Police located Cheek at his mother’s home, where he screamed at officers not to search the residence. During a consensual search, officers discovered a pistol, rifle, and shotgun, and during a secondary search found a purple 9-millimeter handgun hidden in a bathroom compartment. Cheek admitted to police that he owned the purple handgun, went to the witness’s apartment that night, heard noises through the window, became angry, and shot through the window. Gunshot residue testing confirmed one characteristic of residue particle on Cheek, and ballistic testing matched the purple handgun to the casings found at the apartment. Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s order, the court concluded the State established by a preponderance of the evidence that Cheek committed murder, and therefore the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking community supervision and adjudicating guilt.
Key Takeaways
- Appellate review of an order revoking deferred adjudication community supervision is limited to abuse of discretion, with the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court’s order.
- The State need only prove one violation of community supervision conditions by a preponderance of the evidence to support revocation; establishing a single sufficient ground is enough.
- A defendant’s own admissions to police, combined with corroborating physical evidence such as ballistic matches and gunshot residue, can provide legally sufficient evidence to support a trial court’s finding that the defendant committed a new offense while on community supervision.
Why It Matters
This memorandum opinion reinforces the deferential standard of review applied to probation revocation proceedings in Texas. It underscores that trial courts possess broad discretion in determining whether the State has proven a violation by a preponderance of the evidence, and that appellate courts will not reweigh witness credibility or evidence. The decision also illustrates that a defendant’s incriminating statements during police interviews, when corroborated by forensic evidence, can satisfy the State’s burden even when the defendant claims lack of specific intent to kill.