Background
Barihenuye Twehangane pleaded no contest to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a second-degree felony. Under a negotiated plea agreement, the trial court deferred adjudication and placed him on community supervision for five years. The conditions of his supervision were later modified five times.
After earlier motions to adjudicate and revoke were dismissed, the State filed a third amended motion alleging 16 violations. Twehangane initially pleaded true to all allegations but changed his pleas to not true at a contested hearing. The trial court found 11 allegations true, adjudicated him guilty, revoked his community supervision, and sentenced him to 15 years in prison.
Appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw, concluding that the record presented no meritorious or arguable appellate issues. Twehangane received the required notices and records but did not file a pro se response.
The Court’s Holding
The Eleventh Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and agreed that the appeal lacked merit. Applying the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s rulings, the appellate court concluded that sufficient evidence supported every violation the trial court found true.
The court emphasized that proof of a single violation of a community-supervision condition is sufficient to support adjudication and revocation. Because the record supported multiple violations, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by adjudicating Twehangane guilty and revoking his community supervision.
The appellate court granted appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirmed the trial court’s judgment, including the 15-year prison sentence.
Key Takeaways
- The State must prove a community-supervision violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
- A single proven violation is sufficient to support adjudication and revocation.
- After conducting the independent review required by Anders, the court found no meritorious or arguable ground for appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the deferential review applied to community-supervision revocations. Trial courts determine witness credibility and evidentiary weight, while appellate courts review the evidence in the light most favorable to the revocation ruling.
It also illustrates the Anders procedure: even when appointed counsel identifies no arguable issue, the appellate court must independently examine the record before permitting counsel to withdraw and affirming the judgment.