AFFIRMED; and Opinion Filed June 17, 2014.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-13-00400-CR

ALONZO LEWIS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F09-30892-T

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices FitzGerald, Fillmore, and Evans 

Opinion by Justice Evans

Alonzo Lewis appeals from the revocation of his probation and conviction for the offense 

of sexual contact with a child. Lewis brings two points of error contending the trial court erred 

in considering the results of a polygraph test when deciding to revoke his probation and that his 

counsel was ineffective because he did not object to the polygraph evidence. Finding no merit in 

Lewis’s arguments, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Lewis was charged with the offense of indecency with a child by contact to which he 

pleaded guilty on January 5, 2010. Pursuant to a plea bargain, the trial court deferred 

adjudicating Lewis’s guilt and placed him on community supervision for eight years. On April 

19, 2010, the trial court modified Lewis’s probation to add additional conditions including 
–2–

forbidding him from having any direct or indirect contact with a child seventeen years of age or 

younger. 

On December 4, 2012, the State filed a motion to proceed with an adjudication of guilt 

alleging that Lewis violated seven conditions of his probation. Among the alleged violations 

were his failure to pay various costs and fees, incidental contact with the victim of the offense, 

physical contact with children under the age of seventeen, and failure of a polygraph test. At the 

hearing on the motion, Lewis pleaded “true” to the allegations and gave testimony admitting to 

repeated contact with children aged seventeen years and younger including his nieces and 

nephews and his girlfriend’s daughters. In addition, Lewis signed a judicial confession stating 

that he had failed to pay his community supervision fees. 

At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court stated that the “major concern” was 

Lewis’s contact with children under the age of seventeen. The court accepted Lewis’s plea of 

true and found that Lewis committed six of the seven alleged probation violations. The court 

specifically stated it was making no finding concerning the allegation that Lewis failed a 

polygraph test. The court then made the seemingly contradictory statement that it was “not 

considering the fact that [Lewis] failed the polygraph for any purpose other than determining to 

revoke [his] probation [sic] or what the appropriate sentence is.” The court revoked Lewis’s 

probation, adjudicated him guilty, and sentenced him to ten years’ confinement. The trial court’s 

docket sheet confirms that it did not find that Lewis violated the conditions of his probation by 

failing a polygraph test. Following the denial of his motion for new trial, Lewis brought this 

appeal.

ANALYSIS

In his first point of error, Lewis contends the trial court erred in considering inadmissible 

evidence from a polygraph test in making its determination to revoke his probation. See Leonard 
–3–

v. State, 385 S.W.3d 570, 582–83 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (trial court abused its discretion in 

revoking probation based solely on legally inadmissible polygraph evidence). Even if Lewis 

were correct that the trial court considered the polygraph evidence, it is well established that an 

order revoking probation may be supported by a single sufficient ground. See Jones v. State, 571 

S.W.2d 191, 193–94 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). In this case, appellant pleaded true to 

all the allegations against him in the motion to adjudicate. Generally, a plea of true to the alleged 

violations, standing alone, is sufficient to support a trial court’s revocation order. See Cole v. 

State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979); Moore v. State, 11 S.W.3d 495, 

498 n. 1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.). In addition, appellant specifically 

admitted that he failed to pay community supervision fees and that he had repeated contact with 

children under the age of seventeen. Because this evidence was sufficient to support multiple

grounds for revoking Lewis’s probation, and the trial court specifically found those grounds to 

be true, the trial court’s order cannot be reversed based on the alleged insufficiency of the 

evidence to support a single alternative ground. See Jones, 571 S.W.2d at 193–94. We overrule 

Lewis’s first point of error. 

In his second point of error, Lewis contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel 

because his attorney failed to object to the trial court’s consideration of the polygraph evidence 

in its determination to revoke his probation. To prevail on his claim of ineffective assistance of 

counsel, Lewis must show his counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of 

reasonableness and there is a reasonable probability that the results of the proceedings would 

have been different in the absence of his counsel’s alleged errors. See Strickland v. Washington,

466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); Bone v. State, 77 S.W.3d 828, 833 (Tex.Crim.App. 2002). Lewis has 

the burden of proving ineffective assistance of counsel by a preponderance of the evidence. 

Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808, 813 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999). Failure to make the required 
–4–

showing either of deficient performance or sufficient prejudice defeats an ineffectiveness claim. 

See Andrews v. State, 159 S.W.3d 98, 101 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005).

As discussed above, the evidence presented at the hearing, including Lewis’s own 

admissions, was sufficient to support multiple grounds for revocation other than Lewis’s alleged 

failure of a polygraph test. The trial court made no finding that Lewis violated his probation by 

failing a polygraph test and gave no indication that it was relying solely on the polygraph 

evidence in making its determination to revoke probation. Indeed, the court indicated that its 

main concern was Lewis’s contact with children under the age of seventeen. Because Lewis 

admitted to violating alternative conditions of his probation and the trial court made no finding 

based on the polygraph evidence, there is no showing that counsel’s failure to object to the 

polygraph evidence had any effect on the outcome of the proceedings. We overrule Lewis’s 

second point of error.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App. P. 47 

130400F.U05

/ David Evans/

DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE
–5–

Court of Appeals

S

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

ALONZO LEWIS, Appellant

No. 05-13-00400-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F09-30892-T.

Opinion delivered by Justice Evans. 

Justices FitzGerald and Fillmore 

participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 17th day of June, 2014.

/David Evans/

DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE