## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

__________

_________________ No. 02

- 23

- 00170

- C R No. 02

- 23

- 00171

- CR

___________________________

On Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 4

Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No s . 1668908, 1668909

Before Birdwell, Bassel, and Walker, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker 

### A NDRE 

### D WAYNE 

### W

ASHINGTON 

### , Appellant

V



### . T HE 

### S TATE OF 

### T EXAS2 MEMO RANDUM OPINION Appellant Andre Dwayne Washington appeal s fro m the trial court ’ s judgment
ad j udicating him guilty and sentencing him to twelve ye ars ’ confinement. In a single issue, he argues that the tria l court abused its discretion by adjudicating him guilty
because it “ heard the ev

idence wro ngly

. ” We will af firm.
I. B ACKGROUND
A f ter pleading guil ty to the felony offe nses of possession with intent to deliver fentanyl and co caine , the tria l cou rt placed W a shington on deferred adjudication for three years on each charge

. Whil e still on deferred adjudication , the State pet itioned
the trial court to proceed to adjudicate Washington guilty on both charges

. It alleged
th at he h ad committed a new dr ug offense for possess ion of marijuana and numerous

o ther violations of the terms a nd conditio ns of his community supervision. 1
At the adjudication hearing , Washington pleade d true to all of the allegations in
the State ’ s petition s . A probation officer and W a shingto n ’ s girlf r iend testified at the hearing

. The proba tion officer testified briefly about W a shington ’ s new drug offense
and his failures to com plete a treatment program, and she opined that Washington
need ed in

- custody treatme nt for subs ta nce ab use. T he gi rlfriend testified that she ha d
been dati ng Washington for about a year

. She conceded to knowing that he was on

1 Specifically, t he petition alleged that Washington had failed ten drug tests, admitted to using marijuana t hirteen times, failed to submit to a drug test f our times, submitte d diluted urine sa mples thre e times , and failed to complete an outpa tient treatment program for substance abuse

.3

community supervision and that he had engaged in drug use at th e beginning of their relationship , 2 b ut she stated that he had stopp ed using in recent months. Whe n as ked
if she knew why he had been placed on community supervision , the following exchange occurred : Q : Do you know why he ’ s on probation?
A : Yes, I do. Q : Do you know what he was doing? A: Yes, I do

. Q : What was he do ing ?
A : He was man ufacturing a nd deliveri ng. Q: Okay . What does that mean?
A: He had drugs in his posse ssion and he was selling it to peop le. Q : Do you know what drugs?
A: Yes , I do. Q: What were they?
A: I believe methamphet amine

. Q: And fentanyl?
A: I b e lieve so, yes.

2 She said that Washington had used marijuana and something t hat she refer red to as “ XO , ” which sh e explain ed may have been “ a fo rm of E cstasy ” that was som etim es “ laced with meth. ”4

Af te r the heari ng, t he trial cour t orally pronounced it s ruling :
Mr. W a shington , having heard your plea of true to the allegat ions and the State ’ s petitions to adjudicate, I hereby formal ly adjudica te your guilt in thes e cases. And, based on the evidence pre sented, bas ed on the underlying events, and the testimony of your girlfriend that she knew you were dealing fentanyl and cocai ne, I hereb y sentence you to 12 years in [ prison ].
The tr ia l court ’ s writt en judgment s c omport with its oral ruling , and
W ashington a ppeals from th ose judgment s . II. DISCUSSION
In his sole issue on appeal , Washington argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it adjudicated him guilt y b ecause it s ruling was based on a mishearing
of the evidence

. He grounds thi s argument on the trial court ’ s oral statement that i t s ruling was based in part on “ the testimony of [his] girlfriend that she knew [he was] dealing fentanyl and cocai ne . ” In Wa s hington ’ s view, this statement shows that the
trial co urt adj udic ated him gu ilty “ based on what [it] thought was a subsequent act of manufacturing and d ealing which was neither pled nor . . . part of the evidence in this

case. ” Washington ’ s interpretation of the trial court ’ s statement i s strained and, regardless , his p lea s of tr ue to the State ’ s allegations w ere enough to support the adjudicat ion of his guilt

. We apply an abuse of discretion sta ndard to a trial court ’ s judgment adjudicating guilt and r ev oking deferred

- ad judication com munity sup ervision

. Johnson5

v . St ate , 386 S. W.3d 347, 350 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo 2012, no pet.); see T e x. Cod e Crim.
Proc. Ann. art . 42A.108(b) (providing that determinations to ad judicate guilt are reviewable in the same manne r as those in non

- deferred

- adju dication community

supervision cas es ) ; Rickel

s v. State , 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. Crim . App. 2006) ( stating that we apply abuse of discretion standard to orders revo king community supervision) ; see also Jones v. State , No. 02

- 09

- 147

- CR; 2010 WL 851420 , at *2 (Tex. App.

— F or t Worth Marc h 11, 2010, pet. r ef ’ d ) (mem. op. , no t designated for publication). The State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a condition of community sup ervision was violated. Rickels , 202 S.W.3d at 763. A plea
of true to even on e of the State ’ s all egations is suffic ient to support a judgment adjudicating a defendant guilty and revoking his deferred

- adjudication community
sup ervision

. Se e Wat

ts v. State , 645 S.W.2d 461, 463 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983); Jones , 20 10 WL 851420, at *2

. Here, W a sh ington plead ed true to all of the allegations in the State ’ s pe tition

. That alone is enough to support the trial court ’ s j udgment s adjudicating him guilty.
See Jones , 2010 WL 851420, at *2. Washington claims , though, that the trial court ’ s statement abo ut his girlf

riend ’ s testimony prov es that it based its determination of his

g uilt on a misunderstanding of her testimony. T he hearing transcript , however , contradicts this argument. Concerning the adjudication of Washington ’ s guilt, t he
trial court state d only th at its determinat i on was based on his “ plea of true to the allegat ions and the State ’ s petitions to adjudicate

. ” It then stated that the girlfriend ’ s6

testimony was con sidered in making the sentencing determination. I n other words, the girlfriend ’ s testimony an d any allege d m isun derstandi ng thereof on the part of the trial

court was irre levant to Washington ’ s adjud ication of guilt.
For thes e reasons, w e overrule Washington ’ s sole issue. 3

III. CONCL U SION Having ov errul ed W a shington ’ s single iss ue, we affir m the trial cou rt ’ s ju dgment s . /s/ Brian Walker
Brian Walker Justice
Delivered: May 16, 2024

3 I n his appellant ’ s brief, Washington also alludes t o the trial court ’ s twelve

- year sentence s as being “ harsh. ” T o the exten t that Washington at tempts to challenge his sentenc e s , we overrule that argume nt as u npre served because he raise d it for th e first time on appeal

. S ee Rhoades v. State , 934 S.W.2d 113 , 120 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) ( hol ding that complaint of cruel and unusual punish ment under T exas constitution was waived be cause defendant presented h is argu men t for the first tim e on appeal); Nol and v. State , 264 S.W.3d 144, 151

– 52 (Tex. App.

– Houston [1 st Dist.] 2 007, pet. ref ’ d) (hol ding that wh en appellant failed to objec t to his s entence at t he punishment hearing or to com plain about it in his motio n for n ew t rial , he failed to preserve his Eig hth Ame ndment complaint that the punishment assessed was “ grossly dis proportionate and opp ressive”); s ee also Mercado v. State , 718 S.W.2d 291, 296 (Tex

. Crim. App. 1986) (st ating tha t , as a general rule, appel lant ma y no t assert error per taining to his s entence when he failed to obj ect or otherwise raise such error in the trial cour t).