Memorandum Opinion by Justice Bridges, 14-24-00898-CR, January 27, 2026.
On appeal from the 230th District Court of Harris County
Synopsis
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s adjudication of guilt and fifteen-year sentence, holding that the State’s burden in revocation proceedings is limited to proving a single violation of community supervision by a preponderance of the evidence. The court emphasized that when the record contains conflicting testimony, the trial court sits as the sole judge of witness credibility, and its findings will not be disturbed where the “greater weight of the credible evidence” supports the violation.
Relevance to Family Law
For the Texas family law practitioner, this criminal memorandum opinion serves as a vital reminder of the strategic potency of the “preponderance of the evidence” standard—the same standard governing the issuance of Protective Orders under Texas Family Code § 81.001 and the rebuttal of the joint managing conservatorship presumption under § 153.004. In high-conflict litigation where a party is on deferred adjudication or community supervision, a family law attorney can leverage the lower evidentiary threshold to effectively “weaponize” a client’s testimony. Because the appellate court grants near-total deference to a trial court’s credibility determinations in this posture, securing a favorable finding of “new law violations” in a family court or a revocation hearing can result in a strategic “checkmate” regarding custody, access, and possession.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Kadericka LaQuine Washington was originally placed on five years’ deferred adjudication for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (a motor vehicle). Two years into her term, the State moved to adjudicate guilt, alleging she committed new offenses: possession of a firearm, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and aggravated robbery. At the revocation hearing, the State presented evidence regarding a shooting at the Costa Lounge. A club manager testified that he observed Washington with a handgun in her purse immediately following a gunshot; he subsequently confiscated the weapon and identified her in a photo array. The victim, Davion Phillips, testified that he and Washington had a verbal altercation that escalated into a physical exchange of slaps, followed by a “pop” and his realization that he had been shot. Surveillance footage captured the interaction but did not definitively show the shooting itself. Despite Washington’s challenges to the witnesses’ perceptions and the video’s clarity, the trial court found the State’s witnesses credible and adjudicated her guilt.
Issues Decided
The primary issue was whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding that the State proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Washington violated the conditions of her community supervision by committing a new law violation (aggravated assault).
Rules Applied
The court applied the abuse of discretion standard set forth in Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). In revocation and adjudication proceedings, the State’s burden is a “preponderance of the evidence,” meaning the greater weight of credible evidence must create a reasonable belief that a condition was violated. This is a significantly lower threshold than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard required for a criminal conviction. Furthermore, under Moore v. State, 11 S.W.3d 495 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000), proof of any single allegation is sufficient to support the trial court’s order.
Application
The court’s analysis centered on the sufficiency of the evidence regarding the aggravated assault. While Washington argued the State failed to meet its burden, the appellate court viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling. The court noted that the club manager’s testimony—identifying Washington and describing how he took the firearm from her purse—provided a direct link between the appellant and the weapon. Although the manager did not see the trigger pulled, the victim’s testimony regarding the heated argument and the subsequent “pop” of the gunshot provided the necessary circumstantial bridge. The court emphasized that the trial court, as the trier of fact, was free to believe the victim and the manager while discounting any defensive theories. Because the evidence supported the aggravated assault finding, the court declined to even analyze the robbery or firearm possession counts, as a single violation is all that is required to sustain an adjudication of guilt.
Holding
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in adjudicating Washington’s guilt. The court affirmed that the State met its burden of proving the new law violation by a preponderance of the evidence.
The court further held that when multiple violations are alleged, the appellate court need only find sufficient evidence of one violation to affirm the trial court’s judgment. Consequently, the appellant’s fifteen-year sentence was upheld based solely on the evidence pertaining to the aggravated assault.
Practical Application
This case provides a roadmap for family law litigators dealing with an adverse party who has a “checkered” criminal past or is currently under supervision. When a client reports an act of violence or a threat, the practitioner should immediately investigate the status of the aggressor’s community supervision. Because the “preponderance” standard in a revocation hearing mirrors the standard in a Family Code Protective Order hearing, the testimony secured in one can often be used to drive the result in the other. Furthermore, the case underscores the “all-or-nothing” risk of the single-violation rule: if you can prove just one instance of a violation (e.g., possession of a firearm), you can effectively secure a “win” that results in the incarceration of the opposing party, thereby mooting many custody or access disputes.
Checklists
Leveraging the Preponderance Standard
- Audit Supervision Status: Determine if the opposing party is on deferred adjudication or community supervision.
- Coordinate with Prosecutors: If a new offense occurs, maintain contact with the DA’s office to monitor the filing of a Motion to Adjudicate or Revoke.
- Focus on the “Single Ground”: In a Protective Order hearing, do not dilute your best evidence with weaker allegations; a single proven act of family violence is sufficient for a finding.
- Prioritize Credibility: Since the trial judge is the “sole judge” of credibility, spend significant time on witness preparation to ensure a “clean” record that is insulated from appellate reversal.
Defending Against the Power Play
- Attack the Weight, Not Just the Fact: Since the burden is low, focus on undermining the “greater weight” of the evidence by highlighting inconsistencies in the surveillance or third-party testimony.
- Record Preservation: Object to the admission of evidence that does not meet the specific terms of the alleged violation to prevent the “single ground” rule from being used against you on appeal.
Citation
Washington v. State, No. 14-24-00898-CR (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Jan. 27, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
The “Preponderance Power Play” described in Washington is a formidable weapon in Texas divorce and custody litigation. Under Texas Family Code § 153.004, a court cannot appoint parents as joint managing conservators if there is a “history or pattern” of family violence; notably, the court often relies on the preponderance standard to make this determination. If a spouse is on deferred adjudication for a crime like the one in Washington, a family lawyer can initiate a “parallel track” strategy. By proving the same facts in a family court—even if the criminal case hasn’t reached a final adjudication—the practitioner can secure a permanent injunction or a restrictive custody order. Additionally, if the trial court in the criminal matter adjudicates guilt (as happened here), that finding can be used as powerful evidence in the civil suit to demonstrate that the party is an unfit conservator, often leading to supervised visitation or a total denial of access. In Texas, the crossover between a low-burden criminal revocation and a high-stakes custody battle is where cases are won or lost.
~~ade4fe1c-163e-4dad-98c7-ebfd7404d85e~~
Share this content: