Simmie James Colson III v. State, 01-14-01020-CR

Colson pled guilty in 2004 to theft (state‑jail felony); the court deferred adjudication and placed him on two years’ community supervision with standard conditions (fees, restitution, reporting, community service).
The State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt on June 20, 2006 alleging multiple supervisory violations; a capias issued the same day but Colson was not arrested until October 21, 2014.
At the December 11, 2014 adjudication hearing Colson pleaded true to the violations and presented mitigation evidence (mental‑health issues, rehabilitation efforts, community service helping student athletes, family responsibilities).
The trial judge stated on the record she believed she lacked discretion to impose anything other than the minimum state‑jail sentence and adjudicated Colson guilty, sentencing him to seven months’ confinement and a $600 fine.
On appeal Colson argues the trial court erred as a matter of law by failing to consider statutory alternatives to immediate state‑jail punishment (e.g., treating the offense as a Class A misdemeanor, converting deferred adjudication to regular community supervision, continuing deferred adjudication, or ordering a mental‑health evaluation).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by concluding it had no discretion and failing to consider alternatives to adjudication and state‑jail punishment	Colson: Judge misinterpreted statutory scheme and had available alternatives (use Penal Code §12.44 to treat as Class A misdemeanor or punish as such; continue deferred adjudication or convert to regular supervision; order mental‑health evaluation); error is legal and reviewed de novo — remand for new adjudication hearing	State/Prosecutor: (implied) statute and minimum punishment for a state‑jail felony apply; long delay and expiration/tolling issues limit available alternatives	Trial court adjudicated guilt and imposed 7 months’ state‑jail sentence; appellant asserts legal error because judge did not consider statutory alternatives and seeks reversal and remand (brief argues de novo review and that harm cannot be deemed harmless given judge’s stated belief she lacked discretion)

Ex parte Moss, 446 S.W.3d 786 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (tolling/continuing jurisdiction where a motion to adjudicate and capias issued before supervision expiration)
Garcia v. State, 387 S.W.3d 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (discussing due diligence and effect on supervisory proceedings)
Garrett v. State, 377 S.W.3d 697 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (application of community‑supervision duration limits to felony grades)
Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (1946) (harmless error standard: substantial and injurious effect test)
O'Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432 (1995) (definition of "grave doubt" in harmless‑error analysis)
King v. State, 953 S.W.2d 266 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997) (discussing substantial‑rights/harm standards)
Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978) (mitigating evidence relevance to sentencing)
Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (1982) (consideration of mitigating evidence in sentencing)
Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989) (mitigation and culpability considerations)