Jesse Lee Diamond v. State, 06-17-00099-CR

Jesse Lee Diamond was on one-year deferred adjudication community supervision for unauthorized discharge reckless endangerment and the State filed an amended motion to adjudicate his guilt for multiple alleged supervision violations.
The amended motion alleged seven violations, including failure to report to community supervision for March–October 2016, unpaid fines/costs/fees, failure to reimburse urinalysis costs, failure to report changes, and failure to appear in court.
Defense counsel announced that Diamond pleaded “true” to allegations 1–7 but would offer explanations or excuses; Diamond personally confirmed pleading true while stating he had explanations.
The trial court, after brief testimony from Diamond and the supervision officer (who corroborated noncontact/nonreporting and recommended revocation), adjudicated Diamond guilty and proceeded to punishment, sentencing him to one year in county jail.
Procedural confusion occurred at the hearing over whether the proceedings were in disposition or punishment phase and whether Diamond’s explanations were being offered to contest adjudication or to mitigate punishment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Diamond)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether the trial court erred by accepting pleas of “true” without ensuring they were knowingly and voluntarily entered	Diamond contends his pleas were unknowing/involuntary because he sought to offer "excuses" and record lacks admonishments about consequences of pleading true	State argues Diamond and counsel expressly pleaded true and the record shows awareness and intent to admit violations	Court held no reversible error in accepting pleas of true; even if confusion existed, adjudication still permissible
Whether evidence (absent the pleas) was sufficient to support adjudication	Diamond argues that without valid pleas of true the State failed to prove violation(s) by a preponderance	State relied on Diamond’s admissions and community supervision officer’s corroborating testimony about failure to report and lack of contact	Court held sufficient evidence existed (admissions + officer testimony) to support adjudication and revocation

Little v. State, 376 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2012) (review of adjudication/revocation for abuse of discretion)
Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (standard for revocation/adjudication review)
In re T.R.S., 115 S.W.3d 318 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2003) (trial court as sole factfinder in revocation)
Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (State must prove violation by preponderance)
Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (failure to meet burden is an abuse of discretion)
Marsh v. State, 343 S.W.3d 475 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2011) (proof of any one violation supports revocation)
Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (preponderance of evidence on single violation sufficient)