Opinion filed September 9, 2010

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

__________

Nos. 11-09-00237-CR & 11-09-00238-CR

__________

NEGAL ANDRE JOHNSON, Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 35th District Court

Brown County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. CR19042 & CR19297 

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

In Cause No. 11-09-00237-CR, Negal Andre Johnson pleaded no contest to the offense of 

assault family violence – enhanced. Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, the trial court 

convicted appellant and assessed punishment at ten years confinement and a $750 fine. The trial 

court suspended the imposition of the confinement portion of the sentence and placed appellant 

on community supervision for five years. In Cause No. 11-09-00238-CR, appellant entered a 

plea of no contest to the offense of delivery of a controlled substance in a drug-free zone. 

Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, the trial court deferred the adjudication of guilt and placed 

appellant on community supervision for ten years. The State filed a motion to revoke appellant’s 
2

community supervision in Cause No. 11-09-00237-CR and to adjudicate guilt in Cause No. 11-

09-00238-CR, alleging that appellant violated the terms and conditions of his community 

supervision in several ways including using marihuana. In both cause numbers, appellant 

entered a plea of true only to the allegations of violating the terms and conditions of his 

community supervision by using marihuana. After a hearing, the trial court found that appellant 

violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision in both cause numbers. The trial 

court revoked appellant’s community supervision in Cause No. 11-09-00237-CR, adjudicated his 

guilt in Cause No. 11-09-00238-CR, and sentenced him to ten years confinement in each case. 

We affirm.

In both cause numbers, appellant asserts two issues on appeal. In his first issue, appellant 

contends that he was denied a separate punishment hearing following the trial court’s 

determination to adjudicate guilt in Cause No. 11-09-00238-CR, citing Issa v. State, 826 S.W.2d 

159 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992), as authority. In Issa, the court held that a defendant is entitled to a 

punishment hearing after the adjudication of guilt and that the trial court must allow the 

defendant the opportunity to present evidence. Issa, 826 S.W.2d at 161. 

At the hearing, the State asked, ―Just to clarify, we are proceeding in a unified fashion in 

this hearing?‖ The trial court responded, ―Yes.‖ Appellant did not object to the unified 

proceedings. The State called as a witness Karie Smith, the mother of appellant’s child and the 

victim of the underlying assault charge from Cause No. 11-09-00237-CR. Smith testified that 

appellant does not pay her child support, and appellant objected to relevance. The State 

responded, ―This is a punishment hearing as well.‖ Appellant did not raise any further objection 

to Smith’s testimony on child support. 

At the close of the State’s evidence, appellant called witnesses on his behalf. Appellant 

presented evidence that he would benefit from drug treatment and that the trial court should 

sentence appellant to a ―SAFTP treatment facility.‖ Appellant testified that he could 

successfully complete a ―SAFTP program‖ and that he could also comply with community 

supervision after release from the program. 

Issa does not stand for the absolute right to a separate punishment hearing. Hardeman v. 

State, 1 S.W.3d 689, 690 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Rather, the trial court is required to provide 

the defendant an opportunity to present evidence in mitigation of punishment if not afforded 

during adjudication. Hardeman, 1 S.W.3d at 691. The record shows that appellant was given an 

opportunity to present mitigating evidence and that appellant did present such evidence. It is 
3

immaterial that the opportunity to present evidence came before the actual words of adjudication. 

Pearson v. State, 994 S.W.2d 176, 179 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).

Moreover, in Issa the court found that the defendant preserved error by filing a motion 

for new trial after not having an opportunity to object at the hearing. Issa, 826 S.W.2d at 161. 

In the present cases, the trial court gave appellant an opportunity to object by asking if there was 

a reason why sentence should not be pronounced. Hardeman, 1 S.W.3d at 690. Appellant did 

not object at this time. Appellant did not raise the issue in a motion for new trial. Appellant has 

not preserved this complaint for appeal. Hardeman, 1 S.W.3d at 690. We overrule appellant’s 

first issue on appeal.

In his second issue on appeal, appellant complains that the trial court erred in revoking 

his community supervision in Cause No. 11-09-00237-CR because ―such revocation subserved 

neither the ends of justice nor the best interests of the public or [appellant].‖ Appellant presented 

evidence that he has a drug problem and would benefit from treatment. Appellant specifically 

argues that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him to confinement because the 

evidence supported a finding of drug treatment and continued community supervision.

Appellant pleaded true to the allegation of using marihuana. A plea of true to even one 

allegation in the motion to revoke is sufficient to support a judgment revoking community 

supervision. Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979); Jones v. State, 112 

S.W.3d 266, 268 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.). At a revocation hearing, the trial 

court is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their 

testimony. Jones, 112 S.W.3d at 268. The trial court heard evidence and assessed punishment 

within the applicable punishment range. Appellant has not shown that the trial court abused its 

discretion in revoking his community supervision and assessing punishment. We overrule 

appellant’s second issue on appeal.

The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.

JIM R. WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE

September 9, 2010

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

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.