Opinion filed August 6, 2015

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

__________

No. 11-14-00131-CR

__________

KEVIN SCOTT, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 104th District Court

Taylor County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 18616B

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant, Kevin Scott, pleaded guilty to the offense of assault-family 

violence.

1 The trial court assessed punishment at confinement for eight years and 

sentenced Appellant accordingly. Appellant argues, in his sole issue, that the trial 

 

1TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01(a)(1), (b)(2)(B) (West Supp. 2014); TEX. FAM. CODE. ANN.

§§ 71.004(1), .005 (West 2014). 
2

court abused its discretion when it denied his request for community supervision.

We affirm. 

I. The Charged Offense

The grand jury returned an indictment against Appellant for assault-family 

violence. A person commits the offense of assault-family violence if he commits 

an act against another member of the family or household2“that is intended to 

result in physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or sexual assault or that is a threat 

that reasonably places the member in fear of imminent physical harm, bodily 

injury, assault, or sexual assault, but does not include defensive measures to protect 

oneself.” FAM. § 71.004(1). As charged in this case, assault-family violence is a 

third-degree felony. PENAL § 22.01(a)(1), (b)(2)(B). The punishment range for a 

third-degree felony is confinement for not less than two years but not more than 

ten years, and a fine not to exceed $10,000 may be imposed. PENAL § 12.34 (West 

2011).

II. Evidence at Trial

Appellant entered an open plea of guilty to the charge of assault-family 

violence. During the plea hearing, Appellant acknowledged the felony degree for 

the offense and the range of punishment. He also signed a written plea 

admonishment that acknowledged the charge and the range of punishment. 

Appellant further stated that he understood the implications of his open plea and 

the range of punishment for the offense, and he acknowledged that the trial court 

had sole discretion to decide his punishment.

 

2

“Household” means a unit composed of persons living together in the same dwelling, without 

regard to whether they are related to each other. FAM. § 71.005.
3

S.S., Appellant’s former girlfriend, testified that Appellant, who was a drug 

dealer in Abilene, had come home upset; he argued with her and assaulted her.

S.S. said Appellant would have killed her had she not escaped from his attack. The 

State introduced the stipulation of evidence signed by Appellant and photos of S.S. 

and Appellant after the assault.

S.S. also testified that Appellant should be punished so he could “learn a 

lesson never to try to kill somebody again.” Appellant’s mother and wife testified 

that they hoped he would receive probation. Appellant testified that his 

imprisonment would be a hardship to his wife and his mother, who is blind.

Appellant asserted that his recent illness and S.S.’s alcoholism caused him to go 

over to the house to check on his daughter, Tabitha, even though he knew Tabitha 

was not at the house. Once he arrived, he argued and fought with S.S.

The trial court requested a presentence investigation report (PSI). The State 

introduced, at the disposition hearing, evidence of Appellant’s criminal history and 

other information from the PSI. After a brief recess, the trial court noted 

Appellant’s convictions for theft, possession of illegal drugs, fraud, credit card 

abuse, failure to identify, fugitive from justice, and other offenses. The trial court 

stated that it had considered the PSI and the evidence “very carefully” and found 

that it was in society’s best interest and Appellant’s best interest to hold him 

accountable for his violent crime.

III. Analysis

Community supervision is a privilege; it is not a right. Speth v. State, 6 

S.W.3d 530, 533 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). It is exclusively within the discretion of 

the trial court to determine whether to grant community supervision. Id.; Flores v. 

State, 904 S.W.2d 129, 130–31 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995). In addition, a penalty 
4

within the statutory range prescribed by the legislature will not be disturbed.

Ransonnette v. State, 522 S.W.2d 509, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975).

The trial court heard evidence from several witnesses at the disposition 

hearing, including Appellant and S.S. The trial court noted the seriousness of the 

offense committed by Appellant and his “very significant criminal history.” The 

trial court found that Appellant was accountable for his violent crime. The trial 

court had the discretion to deny Appellant’s request for community supervision.

Speth, 6 S.W.3d at 533. The punishment levied by the trial court was within the 

range authorized for third-degree felony offenses, and the trial court did not abuse 

its discretion when it denied Appellant’s request for community supervision. We 

overrule Appellant’s sole issue. 

IV. This Court’s Ruling

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

MIKE WILLSON

JUSTICE 

August 6, 2015

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., 

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.