Full Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-26-00088-CR ROSHANDA PIERSON, APPELLANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 100th District Court Hall County, Texas Trial Court No. 4077, Honorable Stuart Messer, Presiding September 28, 2026 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before PARKER, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ. In May 2023, pursuant to a plea agreement Appellant, Roshanda Pierson, was granted deferred adjudication community supervision for four years for engaging in organized criminal activity.1 Five months later, the State moved to adjudicate guilt 1 TEX. PENAL CODE § 71.02(a). Appellant successfully pursued a writ of habeas corpus and was granted an out-of-time appeal. In re Pierson, No. WR-96-733-01, 2026 Tex. Crim. App. Unpub. LEXIS 27, at *1 (Tex. Crim. App. Jan. 15, 2026). alleging Appellant had violated the terms and conditions of community supervision as follows: • consumed methamphetamine and amphetamine; • failed to notify of a change in residence; • failed to report in person in June, July, and August 2023; • failed to pay monthly supervision fees and court-ordered fees for June, July, and August 2023; and • failed to file a statement of inability to pay with an explanation and failed to provide a full financial statement for June, July, and August 2023. At a contested hearing on the State’s motion, Appellant pleaded “not true” to some allegations and “true” to others. After hearing testimony, the trial court found as true the allegations of failure to report, failure to pay, and failure to complete forms of her inability to pay, revoked community supervision, and sentenced Appellant to 20 years’ confinement and a $500 fine. Presenting a sole issue, Appellant argues the trial court abused its discretion in adjudicating her guilty because her noncompliance with community supervision was not willful but rather the result of prolonged medical issues including hospitalization. We affirm. BACKGROUND Appellant’s criminal history spans more than 20 years and consists mostly of thefts by check, burglary, fraudulent use of identifying information, and failure to identify as a fugitive. In 2021, she was originally charged with credit card abuse of an elderly person. The charge was then elevated to engaging in organized criminal activity. 2 Appellant’s community supervision officer testified the conditions of community supervision were explained to Appellant. According to the officer, Appellant violated various terms and conditions and struggled with basic compliance including failing to report the first month she was required to in June 2023. She only reported once in September 2023 and explained to the officer she had failed to comply because she had been hospitalized for seizures and other health conditions. The supervision officer admitted noncompliance may be excused for medical emergencies, but Appellant never provided any documentation to justify her noncompliance.2 She did not provide the officer with any dates of hospitalization and despite requests, she never offered any documentation or hospital records showing she had been hospitalized for an extended period. No one notified the supervision officer on behalf of Appellant that she was hospitalized and unable to comply with her community supervision. When Appellant testified, she acknowledged pleading true to some of the State’s allegations. She was aware of the maximum sentence for the charged offense but requested leniency or consideration of mitigating circumstances. She testified if she remained on community supervision, she would request a transfer to Irving, Texas so her sister could help her with compliance and so she would have access to better healthcare. At the conclusion of the testimony, the State asked for the maximum sentence asserting Appellant has been a thief her entire adult life and is a con artist. Appellant 2 Appellant testified she was unable to provide documentation because there had been a roof collapse and water damage where she lived. She also claimed she provided her supervision officer with information about her medical status and suggested the officer was untruthful when she testified. 3 asked to be continued on community supervision and argued her health issues were well documented. Alternatively, she asked for a minimum sentence. The trial court reminded Appellant a continuance had been granted to allow her time to gather documentation, but no records were retrieved showing continuous hospitalization from June 1, 2023, through August 31, 2023. The trial court ruled the supervision officer’s testimony was credible and Appellant’s was not. Appellant was adjudicated guilty of engaging in organized criminal activity, sentenced to confinement for 20 years, and ordered to pay the remainder of her $500 fine. STANDARD OF REVIEW An appeal from a court’s order adjudicating guilt is reviewed in the same manner as a revocation hearing. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 42A.108(b). When reviewing an order revoking community supervision imposed under an order of deferred adjudication, the sole question before this Court is whether the trial court abused its discretion. Hacker v. State, 389 S.W.3d 860, 865 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). In a revocation proceeding, the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of community supervision as alleged in the motion to revoke. Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 874 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). The trial court abuses its discretion in revoking community supervision if, as to every ground alleged, the State fails to meet its burden of proof. Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493–94 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). In determining the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a revocation, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling. Jones v. State, 589 S.W.2d 419, 421 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). The finding of a single violation of community 4 supervision is sufficient to support revocation. Garcia v. State, 387 S.W.3d 20, 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). Additionally, a plea of true standing alone is sufficient to support a trial court’s revocation order. Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). ANALYSIS The State proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Appellant violated certain conditions of community supervision. Despite her effort to excuse the violations, her pleas of true alone to some of the allegations support the trial court’s findings. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in adjudicating Appellant guilty and imposing a sentence of 20 years. Her sole issue is overruled. CONCLUSION The trial court’s Judgment Adjudicating Guilt is affirmed. Alex Yarbrough Justice Do not publish. 5