NUMBER 13-11-00596-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG 

 

ALONZO MOORE, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee. 

 

On appeal from the 105th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Vela

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rose Vela 

This is an appeal from an order revoking appellant, Alonzo Moore’s, community 

supervision. Appellant was charged with two counts of family violence assault. See 

TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01 (West 2011). He pleaded guilty and was placed on 

deferred adjudication-community supervision for five years. By one issue, appellant 

urges that the trial court erred when it failed to consider either mitigating circumstances or 
2

the full range of punishment available to him upon revocation. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

On August 1, 2011, appellant pleaded guilty to the offense of family violence 

assault against his girlfriend. The State moved to revoke appellant’s community 

supervision on August 8, 2011, a week later, alleging that on August 6, 2011, appellant 

again committed the offense of assault on the same woman as well as having contact with 

her. Appellant pleaded "true" to the violations. 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The proper standard of review of a trial court's decision concerning revocation of a 

defendant's probation is one of abuse of discretion. Forrest v. State, 805 S.W.2d 462, 

464 n. 2 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Due process requires a neutral and detached hearing 

body or officer. Brumit v. State, 206 S.W.3d 639, 645 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). For due 

process purposes, absent a clear showing of bias, a trial court’s action will be presumed 

to have been correct. Id.

III. ANALYSIS

Appellant argues by his sole issue that the trial court failed to consider mitigating 

circumstances or the full range of punishment in this case. The record reflects that the 

appellant pleaded true to both violations. There was testimony offered that on August 6, 

2011, the police entered the victim’s apartment and the victim told police that appellant 

had been hitting her pretty much all night long. This was less than a week after he had 

been placed on probation. 
3

The trial court stated at the end of the hearing that it took appellant only five 

minutes to violate its orders. The court iterated she had read everything in the file, and 

decided to revoke his community supervision and assess his punishment at ten years’ 

confinement. The crime for which appellant was convicted was a third-degree felony 

punishable by not more than ten years. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 12.34 (West 2011). 

The sentence given was within the allowable range. The trial court’s comments here, as 

in Brumit, do not support appellant’s argument that the trial court predetermined 

appellant’s sentence or failed to consider mitigating circumstances. There is absolutely 

nothing in the record to show any bias or partiality on the trial court’s part. Appellant’s 

issue is overruled.

IV. CONCLUSION

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

ROSE VELA

Justice

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed the

23rd day of August, 2012.