Background
Jose M. Portalatin pleaded guilty to criminal mischief and stalking. In 2022, the trial court deferred adjudication and placed him on community supervision for four years. His conditions included having no contact with his former wife, the complainant in the stalking case, and complying with GPS monitoring and exclusion zones. The court released him from GPS monitoring in April 2023.
After the State later alleged that Portalatin had violated the no-contact condition, it agreed to dismiss its petition to adjudicate if he accepted GPS monitoring with exclusion zones for the remainder of his supervision. Portalatin signed the amended condition but refused the next day to install and comply with the monitoring because he considered the exclusion zones too restrictive. The trial court found a violation, adjudicated him guilty, and imposed concurrent sentences of 24 months in a state-jail facility for criminal mischief and four years in prison for stalking.
The Court’s Holding
The court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding that Portalatin violated the amended supervision condition. Portalatin had agreed to GPS monitoring “with exclusion zones,” and testimony from both Portalatin and his supervision officer showed that he refused to comply with the exclusion-zone component after learning its scope. A single proven violation was sufficient to support adjudication.
The court also rejected Portalatin’s contention that the trial court punished him for exercising due process rights. He did not expressly present a due process objection below, so any constitutional complaint was forfeited. In any event, the record showed that the trial court adjudicated guilt because he violated the agreed condition, not because he asserted a constitutional right.
Key Takeaways
- A probationer’s refusal to comply with the exclusion-zone component of required GPS monitoring can support revocation and adjudication.
- Proof by a preponderance of the evidence of one community-supervision violation is sufficient to adjudicate guilt.
- A due process challenge generally must be raised in the trial court to be preserved for appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that an amended supervision condition is enforced according to its full terms. A defendant who agrees to GPS monitoring with exclusion zones cannot satisfy the condition by accepting monitoring while rejecting the zones.
It also illustrates the preservation risk in framing objections only as practical complaints. Portalatin argued that the proposed zones interfered with his work, but because he did not present a due process claim to the trial court, the appellate court treated the constitutional issue as forfeited.