Full Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont ________________ NO. 09-24-00400-CR ________________ TROY DELANO CHEEK JR., Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the Criminal District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. F17-28257 ________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant Troy DeLano Cheek Jr. appeals from the revocation of his deferred adjudication community supervision and imposition of sentence for Evading Arrest and Detention with a Motor Vehicle. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 38.04(a). In a single issue, Cheek argues that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the trial court’s finding that he committed a violation of his community supervision. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. 1 Background Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, Cheek pled guilty to evading arrest and detention with a motor vehicle, a third-degree felony. See id. § 38.04(a), (b)(1)(B). The trial court found the evidence sufficient to find Cheek guilty but deferred further proceedings without entering an adjudication of guilt, placed Cheek on community supervision for ten years, and ordered Cheek to pay a $500 fine. Thereafter, the State filed a motion to revoke Cheek’s unadjudicated community supervision, asserting that Cheek violated two conditions of his community supervision. On November 13, 2024, the trial court held a hearing on the State’s motion to revoke. During the hearing, Cheek pleaded “true” to the second violation alleged in the motion but pleaded “not true” to the first violation.1 Following the entry of Cheek’s pleas, the trial court held a hearing on the State’s motion to revoke. After hearing evidence, the trial court found count one to be “true.” Based on this finding, the trial court found the evidence sufficient to establish that Cheek violated the conditions of his community supervision. The trial court revoked Cheek’s community supervision, adjudicated him guilty of evading arrest and 1 Although Cheek pleaded “true” to this allegation—that he failed to pay his probation fees—he was questioned by the trial court whether he had money available to pay his fees, and he testified that he did not. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court did not make any finding applicable to the second alleged violation, and it is not included in the Judgment Adjudicating Guilt. 2 detention with a motor vehicle, and sentenced him to ten years in prison. Cheek timely filed a notice of appeal. Analysis Cheek brings one issue on appeal, arguing that the evidence is legally insufficient to support the trial court’s finding that he violated a condition of his community supervision by committing the offense of murder as alleged in the motion to revoke probation. An appellate court’s review of an order adjudicating guilt is generally limited to a determination of whether the trial court abused its discretion. See Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (“‘Appellate review of an order revoking probation is limited to abuse of the trial court’s discretion.’”) (quoting Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984)). In a hearing to revoke deferred adjudication community supervision, the State has the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed a violation of the conditions of his community supervision. See id.; Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). The evidence meets this standard when the greater weight of the credible evidence creates a reasonable belief that the defendant has violated a condition of his community supervision. Rickels, 202 S.W.3d at 763-64 (quoting Scamardo v. State, 517 S.W.2d 293, 298 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974)); Duncan v. State, 321 S.W.3d 53, 57 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, pet. ref’d). 3 We must examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s order. Garrett v. State, 619 S.W.2d 172, 174 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). In determining whether the allegations in the motion to revoke are true, the trial court is the sole trier of facts, the judge of the credibility of the witnesses, and the arbiter of the weight to be given to the testimony. Taylor v. State, 604 S.W.2d 175, 179 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980); Trevino v. State, 218 S.W.3d 234, 240 (Tex. App.— Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, no pet.). To support the trial court’s order revoking community supervision, the State need only establish one sufficient ground for revocation. See Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980). Cheek’s deferred adjudication order required Cheek to “[c]ommit no offense against the laws of this State or of any other state or of the United States.” In its motion to revoke, the State alleged in count one that Cheek violated his deferred adjudication order by committing the offense of murder on February 24, 2024. At the motion to revoke hearing, the State called three witnesses, two officers and a detective employed by the Beaumont Police Department. Sidney Gomez works as an officer with the Beaumont Police Department. On February 24, 2024, at approximately 10:58 p.m. she was dispatched to an apartment in Beaumont in reference to a victim of a shooting. When Gomez arrived, she discovered a deceased black male in the apartment bedroom. Gomez began her 4 investigation and discovered a bullet hole in the window and 9-millimeter casings outside the apartment window. A copy of her body camera footage was admitted as State’s exhibit one. Gomez identified Cheek as a suspect and identified him in the courtroom. According to a female witness at the scene, the apartment in question was her apartment, and she and the victim were having sexual intercourse at the time he was shot. The witness told Gomez that she and Cheek dated for three or four months prior and that he had previously broken into her apartment. She told Gomez that Cheek had texted her earlier that day and said, “I am going to show you.” Zachary Moss testified he is employed as a police officer with the Beaumont Police Department. He was dispatched on February 24, 2024, to locate Cheek as a potential homicide suspect. He arrived at a home in Beaumont, identified Cheek, and placed him into custody. Moss then spoke to Cheek’s mother. Cheek’s mother gave officers consent to search her home. According to Moss, Cheek was screaming, “Don’t let them search. Don’t give them consent to search the house.” Initially, officers found a pistol, a rifle and a shotgun, but after a secondary search they also found a purple handgun in a hidden compartment in the bathroom. James Gillen works as an officer with the Beaumont Police Department. On February 24, 2024, around 11 p.m., he was dispatched to investigate a homicide in Beaumont. He arrived, spoke to officers at the scene, and found 9-millimeter casings on the ground outside an apartment. Gillen and the other officers entered the 5 apartment, and in the bedroom found a black male deceased on the ground at the foot of the bed. The officers identified the victim and interviewed a witness to the shooting. The witness told Gillen that she and the victim were having sexual intercourse when “a bullet comes through the window, hits him in the head.” Gillen was then called across town to Cheek’s mother’s home, where officers detained Cheek. Cheek’s mother gave the officer’s permission to search her home. The search uncovered a “handgun, a rifle, and a shotgun.” After a second sweep of the house, the officers found a handgun, a red shirt and a hat in a secret compartment in the bathroom. Cheek was taken to the police station, where he was given his Miranda rights, and agreed to a police interview. A copy of the interview was admitted during the revocation hearing. Gillen testified that at the interview, Cheek admitted to owning a purple 9-millimeter gun, the same caliber gun that matched the bullet casings outside the victim’s window. He also admitted to going over to the female witness’s apartment that night, hearing noises coming through the window, becoming angry, and shooting through the window. Gillen also stated that officers seized and searched Cheek’s phone via a warrant and conducted a Gun Shot Residue (GSR) test on Cheek that night. The GSR confirmed one characteristic of residue particle. The Department also found a match between the purple handgun and the casings found at the apartment. According to Gillen, Cheek never told detectives that he intended to kill anyone, only that he wanted to stop the victim from having sex. 6 Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s order, we find that the evidence was sufficient to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Cheek committed the crime of murder. See Rickels, 202 S.W.3d at 763-64; Garrett, 619 S.W.2d at 174. Accordingly, we conclude that there was legally sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that the allegation in count one of the State’s motion to revoke was true. In light of this conclusion, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Cheek’s community supervision and adjudicating his guilt. See Rickels, 202 S.W.3d at 763. We overrule Cheek’s single point of error, and we affirm the trial court’s judgment. AFFIRMED. KENT CHAMBERS Justice Submitted on June 29, 2026 Opinion Delivered November 4, 2026 Do Not Publish Before Golemon, C.J., Wright and Chambers, JJ. 7