Juan Antonio Deleon v. State, 01-15-00928-CR

Juan Antonio Deleon pleaded guilty to separate offenses: deadly conduct and enhanced aggravated assault; the trial court deferred adjudication and placed him on five years' community supervision.
The State later filed motions to adjudicate alleging violations: (1) committing an offense, (2) possession of a firearm, and (3) failure to complete required community-service hours.
Before the revocation hearing the State abandoned the allegation that Deleon committed a state or federal offense; Deleon did not enter any plea to the motions to adjudicate.
At the contested hearing the State’s probation officer testified Deleon failed to complete November 2014 community-service hours; the State also presented evidence about two shooting investigations; Deleon and his wife testified in his defense.
The trial court found Deleon failed to complete community service and was in possession of a handgun, adjudicated him guilty, and sentenced him to concurrent terms of five years (deadly conduct) and eight years (enhanced aggravated assault).
On appeal Deleon argued the court abused its discretion in adjudicating guilt and in sentencing, and that the judgments incorrectly recited that he pleaded true to the motions to adjudicate.

Issue	Deleon’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Whether adjudication was an abuse of discretion because necessity/self-defense negated firearm violation	Trial court ignored evidence showing necessity and self-defense to possession	State proved violations by preponderance; at least one violation (failure to complete community service) was established	Affirmed: revocation proper because failure to complete community service alone supported adjudication
Whether sentencing was an abuse of discretion for not considering mitigating factors	Court failed to consider employment, compliance with other terms, fee payments, attendance	Court allowed Deleon to present mitigating evidence; sentences within statutory ranges	Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; sentences within statutory limits
Whether judgments should be corrected to remove recitals that Deleon pleaded "true" to motions to adjudicate	Deleon never pleaded true; judgments are inaccurate	State concedes Deleon did not plead; trial record shows no plea entered	Modified judgments to remove any indication of a plea of true; affirmed as modified

Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (revocation reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Hacker v. State, 389 S.W.3d 860 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (State must prove violation by preponderance)
Shah v. State, 403 S.W.3d 29 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012) (preponderance standard for revocation)
Dansby v. State, 398 S.W.3d 233 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (one proved violation is sufficient to revoke)
Grammer v. State, 294 S.W.3d 182 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (defendant entitled to present mitigating evidence at sentencing)
Pearson v. State, 994 S.W.2d 176 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (opportunity to present mitigating evidence required)
Tapia v. State, 462 S.W.3d 29 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (sentencing reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Ex parte Broadway, 301 S.W.3d 694 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (after adjudication court limited by statutory punishment ranges)
Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (sentence within statutory range will not be disturbed)
French v. State, 830 S.W.2d 607 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992) (appellate courts may reform judgments to make the record speak the truth)
Dromgoole v. State, 470 S.W.3d 204 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015) (appellate authority to correct judgments)