Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 02-28-2021
Case Style:
Terry Lewis Day v. The State of Texas
Case Number: 11-19-00087-CR
Judge: W. STACY TROTTER
Court: Eleventh Court of Appeals
Plaintiff's Attorney: Alex R. Hunn, Assistant
Micheal Murray, District Attorney
Defendant's Attorney:
OR
Just Call 855-853-4800 for Free Help Finding a Lawyer Help You.
Description:
Eastland, TX - Criminal defense attorney represented Terry Lewis Day with an Indecency with a Child charge.
Appellant, Terry Lewis Day, pleaded guilty to the offense of indecency with a
child. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.11(a)(2)(A) (West 2019). The trial court
deferred the adjudication of Appellant’s guilt and placed Appellant on community
supervision for a period of eight years. Near the end of that period, the State filed a
motion to adjudicate guilt. Ultimately, Appellant’s community supervision was
modified and extended for an additional two years. Subsequently, the State moved
to adjudicate Appellant’s guilt on the grounds that he had violated five conditions of
2
his community supervision. At the hearing on the motion to adjudicate, the State
waived one of its allegations, and Appellant pleaded “not true” to the remaining four
allegations. After it found the four allegations in the State’s motion to be true, the
trial court adjudicated Appellant guilty of the offense of indecency with a child,
revoked his community supervision, and assessed punishment at imprisonment for
two years. On appeal, Appellant only challenges three of the trial court’s findings.
We affirm.
When it revoked Appellant’s community supervision, the trial court made the
following findings: (1) Appellant failed to submit to a polygraph test; (2) Appellant
possessed and used a computer with access to the internet without prior approval;
(3) Appellant viewed, received, downloaded, transmitted, or possessed
pornographic, sexually oriented material, or nude images; and (4) Appellant failed
to install, at his expense, any hardware or software systems to monitor his computer
use. On appeal, Appellant does not raise any challenge with respect to the trial
court’s third finding. Therefore, because one sufficient ground will support a trial
court’s revocation order, we need not address Appellant’s issues on appeal. Smith v.
State, 286 S.W.3d 333, 342 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Sanchez v. State, 603 S.W.2d
869, 871 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980); Gobell v. State, 528 S.W.2d 223, 224 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1975); see TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1. We hold that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion when it revoked Appellant’s community supervision.
Outcome: We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: