Casey Dale Hammack v. State, 466 S.W.3d 302

This case involves Casey Hammack challenging a trial court's revocation of deferred adjudication and adjudication of guilt for possession of methamphetamine.
Hammack was placed on deferred adjudication for three years starting August 2012 with a condition to abstain from drugs/alcohol and to comply with evaluations and treatment.
The State filed an application to proceed to adjudication on February 19, 2014 alleging drug use; it was amended March 31, 2014 to include theft, meth use, and positive marijuana tests.
On April 7, 2014 the court modified conditions to require treatment in the DEAR Unit, with discharge contingent on court recommendation.
A July 28, 2014 amendment alleged violation of DEAR Unit conditions related to maintaining rules; Hammack was discharged June 25, 2014, prompting revocation and a six‑month sentence.
The appellate court affirmed, holding the evidence supported the discharge and no fatal variance invalidated the revocation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the evidence supports violation of the modified DEAR unit condition	Hammack argued evidence did not prove romantic/sexual violation	State argued DEAR rules prohibit physical contact and romantic relationships; discharge was rational	Evidence sufficient; no abuse of discretion by court
Whether there was a fatal variance between amended application and proof	Hammack claimed insufficient notice of what was charged	Variance between romantic relationship vs. physical contact; not prejudicial	No fatal variance; no prejudice; notice adequate
Whether the trial court properly applied abuse-of-discretion standard given third-party discretion in DEAR Unit	Discretion of DEAR staff improperly used; not connected to supervision purposes	DEAR staff discharge is valid if rationally connected to supervision purposes	Court did not abuse its discretion
Whether due process notice requirements were satisfied in revocation proceeding	Notice must inform the specific terms allegedly breached	Revocation notice need not be as detailed as an indictment; sufficient to allow defense	Due process satisfied; revocation proper

Pierce v. State, 113 S.W.3d 431 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003) (variance in revocation cases insufficient to surprise defendant; notice adequate)
Chacon v. State, 558 S.W.2d 874 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977) (revocation notice need not mirror indictment; focus on clarity of bases for revocation)
Moore v. State, 11 S.W.3d 495 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000) (revocation variance rules apply; requires no prejudice to defendant)
Leonard v. State, 385 S.W.3d 570 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (third-party discretionary decisions must be rational and connected to supervision goals)
Gollihar v. State, 46 S.W.3d 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (variance doctrine used in sufficiency-of-evidence context)