Sarah Ashley Boswell v. State, 02-15-00470-CR

Sarah Boswell pled guilty via plea bargain to credit card abuse of an elderly person (third-degree felony) and received five years of deferred adjudication community supervision (DACS) and a $500 fine.
Less than three months later the State moved to adjudicate, alleging multiple supervision violations including failure to report, failure to provide proof of employment, failure to complete community service, leaving the county without permission, failing to attend AA/NA as instructed, and positive drug tests.
The community supervision officer testified to positive drug tests for methamphetamine, cocaine, and THC and that Boswell failed to attend required treatment or support meetings; the officer also noted Boswell had seven prior state jail felony convictions.
The trial court found the alleged violations true, revoked Boswell’s deferred adjudication, adjudicated her guilty, and sentenced her to ten years’ confinement (the statutory maximum).
Boswell did not move for new trial or raise objection to the sentence in the trial court; she appealed only arguing the revocation and sentence were an abuse of discretion and violated due process.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court abused discretion in revoking DACS	Boswell: revocation and 10-year sentence "against all logic and the evidence"; due process violated	State: preponderance of evidence established at least one violation (positive drug tests, other defaults), revocation appropriate	Court: no abuse of discretion; evidence (drug tests, other failures) supports revocation and due process afforded
Whether proof met required burden for revocation	Boswell: implied challenge to sufficiency of proof supporting revocation	State: preponderance of evidence standard met by testimony/documentation of violations	Court: preponderance satisfied by officer testimony about positive tests and failures to comply
Whether sentence to maximum violated due process or was unreasonable	Boswell: ten-year term excessive and unsupported by trial record	State: sentence within statutory range and discretionary after adjudication	Court: sentence within range; Boswell forfeited sentencing complaint by not objecting or filing new trial
Whether appellate review is limited by forfeiture of sentencing complaint	Boswell: sought appellate relief on sentencing	State: failure to preserve issue in trial court or via new trial forfeits appellate review	Court: complaint forfeited; not reviewed on appeal

Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (standard of review for revocation is abuse of discretion)
Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (trial court is sole judge of witness credibility in revocation proceedings)
Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993) (State must prove violations by a preponderance in revocation proceedings)
Garrett v. State, 619 S.W.2d 172 (Tex. Crim. App. Panel Op. 1981) (appellate review accords deference to trial court credibility determinations)
Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924 (Tex. Crim. App. Panel Op. 1980) (proof of any one alleged violation suffices to support revocation)
Sanchez v. State, 603 S.W.2d 869 (Tex. Crim. App. Panel Op. 1980) (same principle: one proven violation supports revocation)
Black v. Romano, 471 U.S. 606 (U.S. 1985) (due process in revocation requires opportunity to show justifiable excuse and argue against revocation)
Hicks v. State, 415 S.W.3d 587 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2013) (failure to raise sentencing complaint in trial court or via new trial constitutes forfeiture)