William David Wittmann II v. State, 07-16-00171-CR

Wittmann pleaded guilty to assault against a family member and received five years deferred adjudication with conditions including no contact and no going within 200 feet/200 yards of the victim.
The State filed a motion to adjudicate after an incident on January 13, 2016 alleging Wittmann committed an assault on the victim’s stepfather, communicated with/approached the victim, and violated a protective order.
At the adjudication hearing Wittmann pleaded "Not True." The victim (Clepper) and an officer testified about injuries and a photograph showing facial injury; Wittmann denied striking Clepper and claimed he was a passenger.
Probation officers and the justice of the peace testified that Wittmann was informed of and initialed the supervision conditions and was served a protective order prohibiting proximity to the victim.
The trial court found Wittmann violated condition 1 (commit no offense) and condition 25 (no going within 200 feet of the victim’s residence) and adjudicated him guilty; at punishment Wittmann was sentenced to ten years in TDCJ.

Issue	Wittmann's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in adjudicating guilt based on alleged violations of deferred adjudication conditions	Trial court erred; evidence insufficient to prove he committed the January 13 assault or violated supervision terms	Victim testimony, photo of injury, and witness testimony provided some evidence that Wittmann committed assault and violated the protective order	No abuse of discretion; evidence sufficient to adjudicate (court credited victim’s testimony)
Whether certain supervision terms were unconstitutionally vague	Terms/conditions were vague and thus invalid	State waived some allegations but maintained conditions were clear and Wittmann had initialed and was explained the terms	Court did not reach this issue on the merits because it found a violation of a single clear condition (committing an offense) sufficient to adjudicate
Whether the ten-year sentence was grossly disproportionate in violation of the Eighth Amendment	Ten-year TDCJ sentence is excessive given the facts and injuries	Sentence is within statutory range for third-degree felony; short time on supervision and repeated contact attempts justify sentence	Not grossly disproportionate; sentence upheld as within legislative range and justified by offense gravity and defendant’s conduct

Johnson v. State, 386 S.W.3d 347 (Tex. App. Amarillo 2012) (standard for adjudication hearing same as revocation review)
Antwine v. State, 268 S.W.3d 634 (Tex. App. Eastland 2008) (proof of single violation suffices to adjudicate)
Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (revocation reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) (State bears preponderance burden to prove violation in revocation/adjudication)
Allbright v. State, 13 S.W.3d 817 (Tex. App. Fort Worth 2000) (trial judge as sole arbiter of credibility at revocation/adjudication hearing)
Herald v. State, 67 S.W.3d 292 (Tex. App. Amarillo 2001) (some evidence standard supports revocation/adjudication)
Settlemyre v. State, 489 S.W.3d 607 (Tex. App. Eastland 2016) (definition of bodily injury includes physical pain; supports assault conviction)