From Deferred to Decisive: Adjudication of Family Violence Felony Triggers Statutory Presumptions in Custody Battles
Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Parker, 07-25-00204-CR, January 27, 2026.
On appeal from the 140th District Court of Lubbock County, Texas.
Synopsis
The Seventh Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s judgment adjudicating the appellant’s guilt for third-degree felony assault domestic violence with strangulation following violations of deferred adjudication community supervision. After conducting an independent Anders review, the court determined that no non-frivolous grounds for appeal existed, effectively finalizing a felony conviction that carries significant statutory implications for future or pending family law litigation.
Relevance to Family Law
For the Texas family law practitioner, this criminal affirmance is a critical evidentiary milestone. The transition from deferred adjudication to an adjudicated final judgment of guilt for a felony involving family violence (specifically strangulation) triggers the mandatory application of Texas Family Code § 153.004. This holding solidifies the “finding” of family violence necessary to invoke the rebuttable presumption against joint managing conservatorship and serves as a powerful tool in SAPCR or modification proceedings to restrict access and possession under the best interest of the child standard.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
In June 2021, Appellant Jarven Roberson entered a plea of guilty to assault of a family or household member by strangulation. The trial court initially deferred a finding of guilt and placed Roberson on community supervision for four years. However, the State subsequently filed motions to proceed with an adjudication of guilt, alleging that Roberson failed to comply with multiple conditions of his supervision. During the 2025 adjudication hearing, Roberson pleaded “not true” to the allegations. After hearing evidence, the trial court found two of the State’s allegations to be true, adjudicated Roberson’s guilt, and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Roberson appealed the adjudication.
Issues Decided
The primary issue was whether any non-frivolous grounds existed to support an appeal of the trial court’s decision to adjudicate guilt and the subsequent eight-year sentence.
Rules Applied
The court applied the standards set forth in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008), regarding frivolous appeals and the withdrawal of appointed counsel. Substantively, the case involved Texas Penal Code § 22.01(a)(1), (b)(2)(B), which classifies domestic violence involving strangulation as a third-degree felony. The court also adhered to the procedural requirements of High v. State and Kelly v. State regarding the obligations of appellate counsel in certifying the absence of reversible error.
Application
The appellate court engaged in a “conscientious examination of the record” to identify any preserved reversible error. Appellate counsel had already submitted an Anders brief concluding the appeal was frivolous. The court’s independent review focused on whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding the State’s allegations true and whether the eight-year sentence fell within the statutory range for a third-degree felony (two to ten years). Because the trial court found at least one violation of community supervision to be true—which is sufficient to support adjudication—and because the sentence was within the legal range, the court found no legal basis to disturb the judgment.
Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment adjudicating Roberson’s guilt. The court concluded that the record reflected no reversible error upon which a non-frivolous appeal could be predicated.
Consequently, the court granted appellate counsel’s motion to withdraw. The court noted that counsel’s remaining duty was purely ministerial: notifying the Appellant of the right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review.
Practical Application
This case serves as a reminder that the “safety net” of deferred adjudication is fragile. When a client’s criminal adjudication is affirmed on appeal, the family law practitioner should immediately move to introduce the Judgment Adjudicating Guilt into any pending custody matter. Unlike a deferred adjudication order, which can sometimes be navigated with “rehabilitative” arguments, a final felony conviction for strangulation—carrying an eight-year prison sentence—creates a near-insurmountable barrier to standard possession. Furthermore, the length of the sentence (eight years) provides a potential ground for termination under Texas Family Code § 161.001(b)(1)(Q) if the incarceration results in an inability to care for the child for a period of not less than two years.
Checklists
Weaponizing the Adjudication in Family Court
- Secure the Record: Obtain a certified copy of the Judgment Adjudicating Guilt and the Sentence.
- Notice of Related Facts: File a Supplemental Inventory or an Amended Pleading specifically citing the conviction to trigger TFC § 153.004.
- Interim Relief: Move for a Temporary Restraining Order or a Motion to Modify Temporary Orders to suspend all unsupervised access based on the felony adjudication.
- Collateral Estoppel: Evaluate the use of the criminal conviction to preclude the respondent from denying the underlying acts of violence during the SAPCR.
Mitigating the Downside (If Representing the Adjudicated Party)
- Rebutting the Presumption: Gather evidence of completed domestic violence intervention programs (Battering Intervention and Prevention Programs) completed during the deferred period.
- Nexus Argument: Prepare to argue that the specific acts resulting in adjudication do not demonstrate a pattern of violence that endangers the child’s physical or emotional well-being, though this is difficult with a strangulation conviction.
- Supervised Access: Propose a rigorous permanent injunction and supervised visitation schedule to maintain the parent-child bond despite the incarceration and conviction.
Citation
Roberson v. State, No. 07-25-00204-CR, 2026 Tex. App. LEXIS ___ (Tex. App.—Amarillo Jan. 27, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
The “crossover” here is the lethal combination of a felony strangulation conviction and the resulting long-term incarceration. Under Texas Family Code § 153.004, the court cannot appoint joint managing conservators if there is a finding of family violence. A judgment adjudicating guilt is definitive evidence of such a finding.
Moreover, strangulation is viewed with heightened severity in Texas family courts due to its statistical correlation with future lethality. Litigators should use this affirmance to argue that the Appellant’s conduct constitutes a “history or pattern” of abuse. Even if the underlying assault occurred years ago, the fact that the Appellant “tripped” his deferred adjudication community supervision and is now a convicted felon provides the necessary ammunition to move for a permanent injunction against any access that is not strictly supervised by a professional facility. Finally, practitioners must look ahead: an eight-year sentence likely means the parent will be unavailable for a significant portion of the child’s minority, justifying a move for sole managing conservatorship with restricted or no visitation rights.
~~2aab205e-1efa-4249-af67-c8842a179207~~
Share this content:
