Background
Ladain Journey pleaded guilty to continuous family violence (a third-degree felony) on September 20, 2022, and received deferred adjudication community supervision for four years instead of a guilty adjudication. His conditions included refraining from further offenses, submitting to drug testing, and completing 160 hours of community service at a rate of at least eight hours per month.
On September 26, 2025, the State filed a motion to revoke Journey’s deferred adjudication, alleging three violations: committing a new assault on a family member, failing to provide urine samples for drug testing, and failing to complete the required community service hours. The State waived the drug-testing allegation at the revocation hearing, leaving the assault and community service allegations. The trial court found both allegations proved, adjudicated Journey guilty of continuous family violence, and sentenced him to six years in prison.
Journey appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by finding the assault allegation true despite the victim’s recantation and recanting testimony that she, not Journey, had committed the assault.
The Court’s Holding
The court affirmed the trial court’s revocation decision, applying an abuse-of-discretion standard of review. At revocation hearings, the State must prove any alleged violation by a preponderance of the evidence, and proof of a single violation is sufficient to revoke community supervision.
Addressing Journey’s primary argument, the court rejected his claim that the victim’s recantation rendered the State’s proof insufficient. Although the victim contradicted her initial 9-1-1 call and in-person statements to police, the State presented corroborating evidence independent of the victim’s trial testimony. This evidence included: a police officer’s testimony that the victim’s facial injuries were consistent with being repeatedly struck; photographs documenting visible injuries; the victim’s recorded 9-1-1 call in which she identified Journey by name and birthdate as her assailant; and the officer’s testimony regarding the victim’s contemporaneous at-the-scene statements. The court found this physical evidence and official corroboration sufficient to prove the assault allegation by a preponderance of the evidence, despite the victim’s later recantation.
The court noted that as the sole trier of fact at the revocation hearing, the trial court had the authority to assess witness credibility and determine the weight of testimony. Because at least one alleged violation was supported by a preponderance of the evidence, the court declined to address Journey’s second point of error regarding the community service violation.
Key Takeaways
- A victim’s recantation of assault allegations does not automatically invalidate revocation evidence when contemporaneous statements, physical evidence, and official documentation corroborate the original complaint.
- Trial courts at revocation hearings may rely on corroborating evidence—including photographs, police reports, and 9-1-1 recordings—even when the victim recants trial testimony.
- Proof of only one community supervision violation is sufficient to support revocation; courts need not address additional allegations once one is established.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that deferred adjudication revocation proceedings are not undermined by a victim’s change of heart or recantation at trial. Appellate courts will defer to trial courts’ credibility determinations and will uphold revocations based on corroborating physical evidence and contemporaneous statements, which protects the integrity of community supervision conditions in domestic-violence cases where victims may be reluctant to testify or may recant due to pressure or reconciliation.
The ruling is significant for defendants in deferred adjudication because it establishes that once revocation allegations proceed to an evidentiary hearing, the availability of objective corroborating evidence—not the victim’s willingness to support the allegations at trial—will determine whether a revocation stands. This principle applies particularly in domestic-violence contexts where victim cooperation is inherently unstable.