NO. 12-22-00260-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

LUCERO HERNANDEZ, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE 241ST 

DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Lucero Hernandez appeals her conviction for aggravated assault against a public servant 

following the trial court’s revocation of her deferred adjudication community supervision. In her 

sole issue, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court’s finding 

that she violated the terms of her community supervision by committing the offenses of possession 

of marijuana and driving while intoxicated. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, Appellant pleaded “guilty” to aggravated assault 

against a public servant. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Appellant “guilty,” 

but deferred further proceedings and placed Appellant on community supervision for eight years. 

The State subsequently filed a motion to adjudicate, which alleged numerous violations of the 

terms of Appellant’s community supervision. Appellant pleaded “true” to the allegations in 

paragraphs one, four through nine, and eleven through fifteen, which included failing to report on 

two occasions, possessing an alcoholic beverage on three occasions, drinking an alcoholic 

beverage on two occasions, failing to report contact with law enforcement to her supervision 

officer within forty-eight hours, failing to report to her supervision officer within forty-eight hours 

after release from jail or other confinement, and failing to submit to a random urinalysis on three 

occasions. 
2

Appellant pleaded “not true” to paragraphs two, three, and ten, which alleged that she

committed the offenses of driving while intoxicated and possession of marijuana.

1 After 

conducting an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that all the allegations in the State’s motion 

to adjudicate were “true,” granted the State’s motion to adjudicate, found Appellant “guilty” of 

aggravated assault against a public servant, and assessed punishment at twenty years of 

confinement. This appeal followed.

REVOCATION OF COMMUNITY SUPERVISION

In one appellate issue, Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the 

trial court’s finding that she committed new offenses of driving while intoxication and possession 

of marijuana, as set forth in paragraphs two, three, and ten of the motion to adjudicate guilt.

Specifically, Appellant argues that the evidence did not establish that (1) the green, leafy substance 

found in her possession was a usable quantity of marijuana rather than hemp, and (2) Appellant 

was the operator of the car in which she was found to be intoxicated. Appellant asks this Court to 

reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand the case to the trial court.

Applicable Law

We review a trial court’s decision to revoke community supervision and proceed with an 

adjudication of guilt for an abuse of discretion. Hacker v. State, 389 S.W.3d 860, 865 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2013). At a revocation hearing, the State has the burden to establish the alleged violations by 

a preponderance of the evidence. Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763-64 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2006); Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Proof of a single violation of 

the terms of community supervision is sufficient to support revocation. Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 

924, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980). In addition, it is well settled that a plea of “true,”

standing alone, supports revocation of community supervision. Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 

(Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979).

Analysis

As discussed above, Appellant pleaded “not true” to the allegations in the motion to 

adjudicate that concerned the commission of new offenses, and six witnesses testified at the 

1 Both paragraph three and paragraph ten of the motion to adjudicate allege that Appellant possessed a 

controlled substance (marijuana) on February 14, 2022. 
3

hearing. Appellant pleaded “true” to all the other allegations. Because proof by a preponderance 

of any one of the alleged violations of the conditions of Appellant’s community supervision was 

sufficient to support revocation, and Appellant pleaded “true” to numerous violations, we need not 

address Appellant’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court’s finding 

that the allegations regarding the commission of new offenses were “true.” See TEX. R. APP. P.

47.1; Cole, 578 S.W.2d at 128. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by 

revoking Appellant’s community supervision and proceeding to adjudicate her “guilty.” See

Hacker, 389 S.W.3d at 865; Rickels, 202 S.W.3d at 763. Accordingly, we overrule issue one.

DISPOSITION

Having overruled Appellant’s sole issue, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

GREG NEELEY

Justice

Opinion delivered June 30, 2023.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JUNE 30, 2023

NO. 12-22-00260-CR

LUCERO HERNANDEZ,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 241st District Court

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 241-1137-17)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and the briefs filed 

herein, and the same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that the judgment of the court 

below should be affirmed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of 

the court below be in all things affirmed, and that the decision be certified to the court below for 

observance.

Greg Neeley, Justice.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.