AFFIRM; Opinion Filed April 15, 2019.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-18-00527-CR

No. 05-18-00528-CR

WILMER ANTONIO SANTOS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 5

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F14-57237-L, F14-21815-L

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Brown, Schenck, and Pedersen, III

Opinion by Justice Schenck

Wilmer Antonio Santos appeals his convictions for the offenses of aggravated robbery and 

theft. In four issues, appellant argues the trial court erred by finding each of the State’s allegations 

true in its motions for revocation of community supervision and adjudication of guilt and abused 

its discretion by revoking his community supervision. We affirm the trial court’s judgments. 

Because all issues are settled in the law, we issue this memorandum opinion. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4.

BACKGROUND

In 2014, appellant was indicted in two separate cases for aggravated robbery and theft. In 

each case, appellant signed a judicial confession and entered a plea of guilty. In both cases, the 

trial court found the evidence sufficient to prove the offense charged, deferred adjudication, and 

placed appellant on community supervision—eight years in the aggravated robbery case and five 
–2–

years in the theft case. In November 2017, the State filed motions to revoke community 

supervision and to adjudicate guilt in both cases. After conducting a two-day hearing on the State’s 

motions in both cases, on February 14, 2017, the trial court found the allegations in the State’s 

motions to be true, revoked appellant’s community supervision, adjudicated him guilty in both 

cases, and sentenced appellant to thirty years of imprisonment in the aggravated robbery case and 

one year of imprisonment in the theft case. Appellant filed motions for new trial in both cases, 

each of which was overruled by operation of law.

DISCUSSION

The State’s burden of proof at a revocation hearing is to show by a preponderance of the 

evidence that a defendant violated the terms of his community supervision, meaning that the 

greater weight of the credible evidence must create a reasonable belief that the defendant has 

violated a condition of his probation. See Hacker v. State, 389 S.W.3d 860, 864–65 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2013). Proof of any one violation is sufficient to support revocation. Dansby v. State, 468 

S.W.3d 225, 231 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2015, no pet.). If the trial court determines the State’s 

allegations are true and that sufficient evidence supports that determination, the court has 

discretion to continue, modify, or revoke community supervision. See id. If the State fails to meet 

its burden of proof, the trial court abuses its discretion by revoking the community supervision.

See id. 

In his third issue, appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial 

court’s finding that he failed to report, urging there was no evidence the State attempted to contact 

him in person. In both cases, one of the conditions of appellant’s community supervision required 

him to report monthly to the community supervisions department. In both motions to revoke and 

adjudicate, the State alleged that appellant failed to report during the months of April, September, 

October, and November of 2016. 
–3–

The code of criminal procedure provides an affirmative defense to revocation for failure to 

report to a supervision officer as directed where no supervision officer, peace officer, or other 

officer contacted or attempted to contact the defendant in person at the defendant’s last known 

residence address or last known employment address. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art.

42A.109. The court of criminal appeals determined the Legislature intended this affirmative 

defense to apply in those instances in which the State has timely alleged violations, but has not 

arrested the defendant before the community supervision period expired. See Garcia v. State, 387

S.W.3d 20, 25 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (interpreting CRIM. PROC. art. 42.12, § 24, which was later 

repealed and re-codified at CRIM. PROC. art. 42A.109). 

Here, the record reflects that appellant was arrested and charged with several violations 

prior to the expiration of his community supervision period. Thus, appellant was not eligible to 

raise this affirmative defense. See id. The record also reflects appellant’s probation officer 

testified appellant failed to report to her as directed in March, April, September, October, and 

November of 2016. In both cases, we conclude the trial court did not err in finding true the 

allegation that appellant failed to report as directed in April, September, October, and November 

of 2016, nor did the trial court abuse its discretion in revoking appellant’s community supervision.

Accordingly, we overrule appellant’s third issue. 

In light of our resolution of appellant’s third issue and conclusion that the record contains 

proof of at least one violation of appellant’s terms of community supervision in each case, we need 

not address appellant’s remaining three issues. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4; Dansby, 468 S.W.3d at

231.
–4–

CONCLUSION

We affirm the trial court’s judgments.

180527F.U05

/David J. Schenck/

DAVID J. SCHENCK

JUSTICE
–5–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

WILMER ANTONIO SANTOS, Appellant

No. 05-18-00527-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court 

No. 5, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F14-57237-L.

Opinion delivered by Justice Schenck, 

Justices Brown and Pedersen, III 

participating.

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

Judgment entered this 15th day of April, 2019.
–6–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

WILMER ANTONIO SANTOS, Appellant

No. 05-18-00528-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court 

No. 5, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F14-21815-L.

Opinion delivered by Justice Schenck, 

Justices Brown and Pedersen, III 

participating.

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

Judgment entered this 15th day of April, 2019.