Opinion filed July 19, 2012

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

__________

No. 11-10-00289-CR

__________

LONNIE BROWN, Appellant 

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 70th District Court

Ector County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. A-36,453

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

Lonnie Brown pleaded guilty in August 2009 to aggravated assault involving serious 

bodily injury. The trial court deferred a finding of guilt, placed appellant on deferred 

adjudication community supervision for a term of ten years, and assessed a $1,000 fine. In 

January 2010, the State filed a motion to proceed with an adjudication of guilt, alleging that 

appellant violated Rule (a) of the rules and conditions of his community supervision by 

committing an offense on about December 21, 2009, to wit: assault with serious bodily injury. 

The State filed an amended motion to adjudicate in May 2010, alleging that appellant 
2

additionally violated Rule (d) of the rules and conditions of his community supervision by failing 

to report in writing and in person to his community supervision officer on or about January 13, 

2010, March 10, 2010, April 14, 2010, and May 12, 2010.

The trial court heard the motion to adjudicate on June 14, 2010, and September 9, 2010. 

Appellant pleaded “not true” to the two alleged violations. Upon receiving evidence, the trial 

court found both allegations to be true, adjudicated appellant guilty of the charged offense, and 

assessed his punishment at confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of 

Criminal Justice for a term of twenty years and a fine of $875. We affirm. 

Standard of Review

On violation of a condition of community supervision imposed under an order of deferred 

adjudication, the defendant is entitled to a hearing limited to the determination by the court of 

whether it proceeds with an adjudication of guilt on the original charge. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC.

ANN. art. 42.12, § 5(b) (West Supp. 2011). This determination is reviewable in the same manner 

used to determine whether sufficient evidence supports the trial court’s decision to revoke 

community supervision. Id.; Antwine v. State, 268 S.W.3d 634, 636 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2008, 

pet. ref’d). In an adjudication hearing, the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence 

that a defendant violated the terms of his community supervision. Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 

759, 763–64 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Antwine, 268 S.W.3d at 636. A preponderance of the 

evidence means “that greater weight of the credible evidence which would create a reasonable 

belief that the defendant has violated a condition of his probation.” Rickels, 202 S.W.3d at 763–

64.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

In his first issue, appellant asserts that the trial court violated his due process rights by 

failing to enter separate findings of fact and conclusions of law after he filed a request for same. 

Due process in the revocation context requires a hearing, written notice of the claimed violations,

disclosure of the evidence against the defendant, an opportunity to be heard and to present 

witnesses and documentary evidence, a neutral hearing body, and “a written statement by the fact 

finder as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for revoking probation.” Ex parte Carmona, 

185 S.W.3d 492, 495 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (citing Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 786

(1973)). 
3

When the trial court revokes a defendant’s community supervision, due process requires 

specific written findings of fact if a defendant requests findings of fact be made. See 

Whisenant v. State, 557 S.W.2d 102, 105 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977); Joseph v. State, 3 S.W.3d 627, 

639 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.). However, the trial court is not required to 

issue separate findings if the judgment or revocation order discloses the grounds for revocation 

found by the court. See Joseph, 3 S.W.3d at 640; see also Reasor v. State, 281 S.W.3d 129, 136 

(Tex. App.—San Antonio 2008, pet. ref’d). The trial court expressly stated in its judgment that 

it was revoking appellant’s community supervision based upon its determination that appellant 

violated Rules (a) and (d) as alleged in the State’s amended motion to adjudicate. Thus, in its 

judgment, the trial court disclosed the grounds for revocation. Accordingly, the trial court was 

not required to issue separate findings.1Reasor, 281 S.W.3d at 136; Joseph, 3 S.W.3d at 640. 

Appellant’s first issue is overruled.

Sufficiency of the Evidence

In his second issue, appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to show that he 

violated the terms of his community supervision. Given the unique nature of a revocation 

hearing and the trial court’s broad discretion in the proceedings, the general standards for 

reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence do not apply. Pierce v. State, 113 S.W.3d 431, 436 

(Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003, pet. ref’d). Instead, we review the trial court’s decision regarding 

community supervision revocation for an abuse of discretion and examine the evidence in a light 

most favorable to the trial court’s order. Garrett v. State, 619 S.W.2d 172, 174 (Tex. Crim. App.

1981). When the standard of review is abuse of discretion, the record must simply contain some 

evidence to support the trial court’s decision. Herald v. State, 67 S.W.3d 292, 293 (Tex. App.—

Amarillo 2001, no pet.). The trial judge is the trier of fact and the arbiter of the credibility of the 

testimony during a hearing on a motion to adjudicate. See Garrett, 619 S.W.2d at 174.

Roy Harrison was appellant’s community supervision officer. He testified that appellant 

failed to report to the Ector County Community Supervison Office in January, March, April, and 

May of 2010 in violation of Rule (d) of the terms and conditions of community supervision. 

Deputy Mike Davis of the Ector County Sheriff’s Department testified that he responded to a 

reported assault on December 21, 2009. He observed the victim of the assault, Catalina Lopez, 

 

1We further note that the trial court also stated at the conclusion of the adjudication hearing that it found both 

allegations alleged by the State to be true.
4

with notable bruising on the left side of her face. Lopez told him that appellant had assaulted 

her. The State offered into evidence a written statement prepared by Lopez two days after the 

assault wherein she stated: “[Appellant] assaulted be [sic] by grabbing me and pushing me into a 

wall. I was then repeatedly struck in the left side of the face by [appellant]. [Appellant] grabbed 

me by the neck and choked me until I almost went unconscious.”

The record contains evidence supporting the trial court’s determination that appellant 

violated Rules (a) and (d) of the terms and conditions of his community supervision. 

Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the alleged violations to be true 

and proceeding with an adjudication of guilt. Appellant’s second issue is overruled.

This Court’s Ruling

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

TERRY McCALL

JUSTICE

July 19, 2012

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

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Kalenak, J.