Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-14-00323-CR

Steven BELTRAN,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 13, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 431439

The Honorable Monica A. Gonzalez, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 15, 2015

AFFIRMED

Appellant Steven Beltran appeals the trial court’s judgment adjudicating him guilty and 

sentencing him to one year in jail, suspended, and placing him on eighteen months’ community 

supervision. On appeal, Beltran raises two issues, in essence contending the trial court erred in 

granting the State’s motion to adjudicate and revoke. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

BACKGROUND

After Beltran violated a protective order, the trial court placed him on deferred adjudication 

community supervision for a period of twelve months. According to conditions fifteen and sixteen 
04-14-00323-CR

- 2 -

of his community supervision, Beltran was prohibited from contacting or attempting to contact his 

ex-wife or her boyfriend in person, verbally, telephonically, in writing, or in any other manner. 

Beltran’s probation officer, Linda Navarro, testified she read the conditions of probation to 

Beltran, including the no contact provision, and he was aware he was not to contact his ex-wife or 

her boyfriend. Ms. Navarro explained to Beltran that if he inadvertently found himself in contact 

with his ex-wife or her boyfriend, he should immediately leave the area. 

Less than a month after Beltran was placed on community supervision, his ex-wife and her 

boyfriend saw Beltran driving toward their vehicle. The couple testified Beltran made a U-turn 

and followed them. During this time, Beltran drove erratically and attempted to close the distance 

between the vehicles. Finally, the boyfriend pulled into a parking lot and parked his vehicle toward 

the street. Beltran passed by them slowly with his window down, gesturing at the couple with his 

middle finger — “throwing [them] the bird” — before driving off. The couple flagged down a 

police officer and reported the incident. The officer took their statements. 

As a result of Beltran’s actions, the State filed a motion asking the trial court to render an 

adjudication of guilt and revoke Beltran’s community supervision. The trial court held a contested 

hearing. At the hearing, the couple testified as set out above. The officer who took the initial 

report and a detective also testified, relaying the information provided to them by the couple, which 

comported with the testimony provided by the couple at the hearing. The trial court also heard 

testimony from Beltran and his supporting witness. Beltran denied following his ex-wife and her 

boyfriend, claiming he was working as a sales representative at the time of the alleged contact and 

in that capacity, was at an automotive dealership meeting with the parts and service director. The 

parts and service director corroborated Beltran’s testimony. However, the witness admitted he had 

known Beltran since 1998, and Beltran had taken him out socially over the years as many vendors 

do. 
04-14-00323-CR

- 3 -

After the hearing, the trial court prepared findings of facts and conclusions of law, finding 

Beltran’s ex-wife and her boyfriend credible, but finding Beltran’s testimony was not credible and 

his corroborating witness unconvincing. As to Beltran’s witness, the trial court noted there were 

no records to substantiate his claims and the court “was not convinced that this witness’ [sic] 

alleged recollection of events was accurate and felt that there was a possibility the dates and time 

frames presented were incorrect.” 

As a result of its findings and conclusions, the trial court adjudicated Beltran guilty of the 

original charge of violating a protective order, revoked his deferred adjudication community 

supervision, and sentenced Beltran to twelve months’ confinement. However, the trial court

suspended the sentence and placed Beltran on community supervision for eighteen months. 

Beltran then perfected this appeal. 

ANALYSIS

Beltran contends the trial court erred in adjudicating him guilty and revoking his deferred 

adjudication community supervision because: (1) the State failed to prove by a preponderance of 

the evidence he made contact with his ex-wife and her boyfriend; and (2) the trial court 

impermissibly enlarged the State’s motion to adjudicate and revoke. As to his second contention, 

Beltran claims the trial court relied upon attempted contact as ground for adjudication and 

revocation — a ground that was not pled in the State’s motion — to grant the State’s motion, 

adjudicate him guilty, and revoke his probation. We disagree with Beltran’s interpretation of the 

trial court’s ultimate conclusion, and hold the trial court did not err in concluding Beltran contacted 

his ex-wife and her boyfriend in violation of the terms of his deferred adjudication, as alleged by 

the State, and there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion. 
04-14-00323-CR

- 4 -

Standard of Review

A trial court’s decision to proceed to an adjudication of guilt and revoke deferred 

adjudication community supervision is reviewed under the same standard as a revocation of regular 

community supervision, i.e., abuse of discretion. Hacker v. State, 389 S.W.3d 860, 864–65 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2013); see TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.12, Sec. 5(b) (West Supp. 2014). An 

order revoking community supervision must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. 

Hacker, 389 S.W.3d at 865; Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763–64 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). 

This means that a greater weight of the credible evidence would create a reasonable belief that the 

defendant had violated a condition of his community supervision agreement. Hacker, 389 S.W.3d 

at 865; Rickels, 202 S.W.3d at 764. 

The trial court is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight given to 

their testimony, and the evidence is reviewed in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling. 

Hacker, 389 S.W.3d at 865; Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). A 

single violation of community supervision is sufficient to support revocation. Smith v. State, 286 

S.W.3d 333, 342 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Reasor v. State, 281 S.W.3d 129, 131 (Tex. App.—San 

Antonio 2008, pet. ref’d). If the State fails to meet its burden of proof, the trial court abuses its 

discretion in revoking the community supervision. Reasor, 281 S.W.3d at 132; Cardona, 665 

S.W.2d at 493–94.

Application

The terms of Beltran’s deferred adjudication community supervision included the 

following two conditions:

15. General Order: You will neither contact nor attempt to contact [EX-WIFE] nor 

any of his/her family members in person, verbally, telephonically, in writing or in 

any other manner, and should you find yourself inadvertently in contact with said 

individual, you will immediately leave and not threaten, assault, or verbally abuse 

him/her.
04-14-00323-CR

- 5 -

16. General Order: You will neither contact nor attempt to contact [EX-WIFE’S 

BOYFRIEND] nor any of his/her family members in person, verbally, 

telephonically, in writing or in any other manner, and should you find yourself 

inadvertently in contact with said individual, you will immediately leave and not 

threaten, assault, or verbally abuse him/her.

In its motion to adjudicate and revoke, the State alleged Beltran violated these conditions 

by making contact with his ex-wife and her boyfriend. Although Beltran was also prohibited from 

attempting to contact his ex-wife and her boyfriend, the State did not allege a violation by virtue 

of attempted contact, merely by actual contact. Beltran contends there is no evidence he actually 

contacted his ex-wife and her boyfriend as alleged, and the trial court found nothing more than 

attempted contact, which was not alleged. 

Beltran directs this court to the final paragraph in the trial court’s conclusions of law. In 

that paragraph, the trial court states “the defendant has at very least attempted to contact the parties 

in violation of conditions 15 and 16.” Beltran suggests this was the trial court’s only conclusion 

that led it to grant the State’s motion. We disagree. 

In the preceding paragraph of its conclusions, the trial court specifically stated: “This court 

is not convinced that because [ex-wife] and [boyfriend] did not respond in kind to the defendant’s 

attempt to harass and intimidate the complainants that contact did not occur.” (emphasis added) 

This sentence constitutes a finding that contact occurred — there was not merely an attempt, but 

actual contact in some manner — Beltran was precluded from contacting either party “in any other 

manner.” Removing unnecessary phrases from the trial court’s conclusion, we are left with the 

following: “This court is not convinced . . . that contact did not occur.” We interpret this as a 

conclusion by the trial court that the State established by a preponderance of the evidence that 

contact occurred, and we agree. 

The evidence, taken in a light most favorable to the verdict, shows that when Beltran 

spotted his ex-wife and her boyfriend, he made a U-turn and followed them until they pulled off 
04-14-00323-CR

- 6 -

the road. Thereafter, Beltran slowly passed by them, making an obscene gesture specifically at 

the couple. As noted by the trial court in its findings and conclusions, the term “contact” is not 

statutorily defined, and thus must be understood as ordinary usage allows, as in common speech. 

See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 3.01 (West 2015) (stating that words, phrases, and terms 

used in Code of Criminal Procedure are to be taken and understood in their usual acceptation in 

common language, except where specially defined); Aschbacher v. State, 61 S.W.3d 532, 539 

(Tex. App.—San Antonio 2001, pet. ref’d) (holding that where term “wrong” was not defined by 

Penal Code, it was to be understood as ordinary usage allows, permitting jurors to give it any 

meaning accepted in common speech). The trial court used a dictionary to define contact as “be 

in or establish communication with.” Given that definition and the evidence, we hold the obscene 

gesture made by Beltran toward his ex-wife and her boyfriend was evidence of an actual 

communication by Beltran in violation of conditions fifteen and sixteen as alleged by the State. 

The trial court’s conclusion that Beltran’s actions also constituted attempted contact is of no 

moment. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, we hold the trial court concluded Beltran violated conditions 

fifteen and sixteen of his deferred adjudication community supervision by contacting his ex-wife 

and her boyfriend and there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion. 

Accordingly, we overrule Beltran’s issues and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Do Not Publish