Full Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-26-00100-CR Anthony MARTINEZ, Appellant v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 226th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2020-CR-9828 The Honorable Benjamin Robertson, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice Lori Massey Brissette, Justice Delivered and Filed: October 14, 2026 AFFIRMED Appellant Anthony Martinez appeals the revocation of his community supervision and adjudication of guilt on one count of indecency with a child. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.11. In one issue, Martinez contends that the evidence is insufficient to prove the State’s allegations that he failed to report to a probation officer. We affirm. Martinez pleaded no contest to one count of indecency with a child, a second-degree felony. In accordance with a plea bargain agreement, the trial court deferred adjudication and placed 04-26-00100-CR Martinez on community supervision for five years. Thereafter, the State filed a motion to enter adjudication of guilt and revoke community supervision. As amended, the State’s motion alleged that Martinez: (1) falsely identified himself with fugitive intent to a law enforcement officer during a traffic stop; (2) committed the offense of driving with an invalid driver’s license; (3) did not report with a probation officer between February 2024 and December 2024; and (4) did not report with a probation officer between January 2025 and October 2025. At the hearing on the State’s motion to revoke, Martinez answered “not true” to all four of the State’s allegations. 1 The trial court found the first allegation not true, but the remaining three to be true. The trial court assessed punishment at twelve years imprisonment. On appeal, Martinez contends that the evidence is insufficient to prove the State’s allegations that he failed to report to a probation officer. The State responds that Martinez fails to challenge the other allegation that the trial court found to be true — that Martinez committed the offense of driving with an invalid driver’s license. “Proof of a single violation of community supervision is sufficient to support a trial court’s decision to revoke community supervision, and we must affirm a trial court’s judgment if an appellant does not challenge each ground on which the trial court revoked community supervision.” Olabode v. State, 575 S.W.3d 878, 880–81 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2019, pet. ref’d) (citations omitted). We overrule Martinez’s sole issue because he does not challenge the trial court’s finding that he committed the offense of driving with an invalid driver’s license. See id. The judgment of the trial court is reformed to reflect that Martinez answered “not true” to all four of the State’s alleged violations. The judgment is further reformed to reflect that the trial 1 The judgment adjudicating guilt incorrectly notes that Martinez answered “true” to three of the State’s alleged violations. -2- 04-26-00100-CR court found the first allegation not true, but the remaining three allegations to be true. As reformed, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed. Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice DO NOT PUBLISH -3-