IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-19-00311-CR

SHELLEY CANON,

1

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 443rd District Court

Ellis County, Texas

Trial Court No. 43821CR

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Shelley Canon appeals the trial court’s revocation of her community supervision. 

In her sole issue, Canon contends that the trial court erred in failing to conduct a separate 

1 The judgment revoking community supervision and several other documents filed in this case indicate 

that the appellant’s last name is spelled “Cannon”; however, the indictment, the original judgment of 

conviction, and many other documents filed in this case, including a letter filed in the trial court by the 

appellant herself, indicate that her last name is spelled “Canon.” When the appellant testified at the 

revocation hearing in this case, she also spelled her last name “Canon”; therefore, we have spelled the 

appellant’s last name “Canon.”
Canon v. State Page 2

punishment hearing.2 Because Canon failed to preserve her complaint for appellate 

review, we will affirm.

Generally, an issue is preserved for appellate review only if (1) the complaint was 

made to the trial court by a timely and specific request, objection, or motion, and (2) the 

trial court either ruled on the request, objection, or motion or refused to rule and the 

complaining party objected to that refusal. TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a); Geuder v. State, 115 

S.W.3d 11, 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). Here, Canon did not object in the trial court to the 

lack of a separate punishment hearing. 

Relying on Issa v. State, 826 S.W.2d 159 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (per curiam), Canon 

argues that she was excused from making an objection because she was not given the 

opportunity to do so. In Issa, the trial court in one proclamation had stated that it 

“[t]hereby revoke[d] [appellant’s] probation and enter[ed] a finding, adjudication . . . , 

and [t]hereby sentence[d] [appellant] to serve a term in the Texas Department of 

Corrections for ten years.” Id. at 161. The Court of Criminal Appeals held that because 

the appellant had no opportunity to object to the trial court’s action until after that action 

2 Although Canon identifies the trial court’s failure to conduct a separate punishment hearing as her only 

issue in the “Issues Presented” and “Argument” sections of her brief, Canon’s brief states the following in 

the “Summary of the Argument” section: “In his only issue, Appellant asserts the evidence was insufficient 

to support the trial court’s finding that he violated the terms of his probation.” But the brief does not 

otherwise contain any argument or authority regarding such contention. Thus, to the extent Canon was 

attempting to raise a sufficiency issue, she has inadequately briefed her complaint and has presented

nothing for review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(h), (i). Moreover, the State need only establish one sufficient 

ground for revocation to support the trial court’s order revoking community supervision, Moore v. State, 

605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980), and Canon pleaded “true” to several of the allegations 

contained in the State’s motion to revoke. 
Canon v. State Page 3

was taken, the appellant’s raising of his objection in his timely filed motion for new trial 

preserved his complaint for appellate review. Id. 

Issa is distinguishable from this case. Here, unlike in Issa, Canon was given the 

opportunity to object in the trial court to the lack of a separate punishment hearing. At 

the end of the hearing on the State’s motion to revoke, the following exchange occurred:

THE COURT: . . . .

. . . .

Court finds that Ms. Shelley Diane Canon did violate the terms and 

conditions of her community supervision, and at this time, the Court is 

going to revoke her community supervision.

. . . .

Court having found that you did violate the terms and conditions all 

these - - of your conditions of probation and the modifying 21 and 22 

conditions, Court is going to assess punishment at 500 days and your 

original fine of a thousand dollars.

. . . .

(Discussion off the record)

THE COURT: Back on the record in Cause Number 43821CR, The 

State of Texas versus Shelley Diane Canon. 

We’ve got Ms. Canon in the courtroom. Her attorney . . . is in the 

courtroom. And [Prosecutor] is in the courtroom also.

[Defense counsel], is there any legal reason why sentence should not 

be imposed today for Ms. Canon?

[Defense counsel]: No, Judge.
Canon v. State Page 4

THE COURT: Thank you.

Then, Ms. Canon, it shall be the order, judgment, decree of this Court 

that you’re going to be taken by the sheriff of Ellis County where you’re 

going to be safely transferred to the authorizing receiving agent of the Texas 

Department of Criminal Justice, the state jail facility, where you shall be 

confined for a period of 500 days.

. . . .

All right. [Prosecutor], anything else?

[Prosecutor]: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: [Defense counsel], anything else?

[Defense counsel]: Nothing, Judge.

Despite the trial court specifically asking Canon if there was any reason why sentencing 

should not be imposed, Canon did not object to the lack of a separate punishment 

hearing. Canon therefore failed to preserve her complaint for appellate review. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 33.1(a); Hardeman v. State, 1 S.W.3d 689, 690 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999).

Furthermore, even if Canon had not been given an opportunity to object at the 

time of sentencing, she did not raise her complaint about the lack of a separate 

punishment hearing in her motion for new trial. Accordingly, Canon has not preserved 

her complaint for appellate review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a); Issa, 826 S.W.2d at 161.

We overrule Canon’s sole issue and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Canon v. State Page 5

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Neill

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed September 30, 2020

Do not publish

[CR25]