Brandon Wayne Patterson v. the State of Texas
This text of Brandon Wayne Patterson v. the State of Texas (Brandon Wayne Patterson v. the State of Texas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Court of Appeals, 7th District (Amarillo) primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-25-00311-CR
BRANDON WAYNE PATTERSON, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court 4 Tarrant County, Texas1 Trial Court No. 1630496, Honorable Andy Porter, Presiding
March 19, 2026 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before PARKER, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ.
Appellant, Brandon Wayne Patterson, appeals from the trial court’s judgment
revoking his deferred adjudication community supervision, adjudicating him guilty of the
offense of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance,2 and sentencing him
1 Because this matter was transferred from the Second Court of Appeals, we apply its precedent
when it conflicts with that of the Seventh Court of Appeals. TEX. R. APP. P. 41.3. 2 TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE § 481.112. to serve fifteen years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
In January 2021, Appellant pleaded guilty to the manufacture/delivery of a
controlled substance in an amount of four grams or more but less than 200 grams. 3 In
exchange for his plea, he was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for
a period of five years.
In March 2025, the State filed a petition to proceed to an adjudication of Appellant’s
guilt, alleging he had violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision. The
State amended its petition twice and on August 7, 2025, Appellant pleaded true to several
of the State’s allegations.4 Appellant was then instructed to appear in court at 10:45 on
Thursday, August 21, 2025. Appellant did not appear until past noon. Under the terms
of the negotiated plea agreement, Appellant forfeited the agreed-upon sentence of five
years of imprisonment by failing to appear on time. Consequently, the agreed-upon plea
became an open plea.
In September 2025, the trial court held a hearing on the open plea. Following the
presentation of evidence, the trial court found Appellant guilty, revoked his community
3 This was a lesser-included offense of the offense with which he was originally charged.
4 A plea of true, standing alone, is sufficient to support revocation of community supervision. Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979); Quinonez v. State, No. 02-24-00225-CR, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 1307, at *2–3 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth, Feb. 27, 2025, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
2 supervision, and assessed punishment as noted. The trial court certified Appellant’s
ability to appeal this matter as to “sentencing only.”
ANALYSIS
Through a single issue, Appellant argues the trial court erred in failing (1) to inform
him of the consequences of pleading “true” in a revocation hearing, and (2) to admonish
him regarding the range of punishment to which he was subject. We overrule the issue.
Appellant contends the trial court erred when it failed to admonish him of his right
to plead “not true” to the allegations, thus requiring the State to prove its allegations. The
record shows Appellant waived his right to appeal, with the exception of issues
concerning sentencing. When a defendant validly waives his right to appeal, the court of
appeals lacks jurisdiction over the matter. Marsh v. State, 444 S.W.3d 654, 660 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2014). There is an exception when a plea is not made voluntarily, knowingly,
and intelligently. See Ex parte Delaney, 207 S.W.3d 794, 795–96 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006)
(explaining a valid waiver of the right to appeal is one that was made voluntarily,
knowingly, and intelligently and the appellate court lacks jurisdiction when a valid waiver
exists). Here, however, Appellant does not argue his pleas of true were not made
voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently.
If we construe Appellant’s issue to be related to sentencing, thereby allowing us to
reach the merits of Appellant’s claims, we still cannot agree with his contentions.
First, while due process principles apply to revocation hearings, Hughes v. State,
691 S.W.3d 504, 514 (Tex. 2024), those principles do not require the trial court to
admonish Appellant of his right to enter a plea of not true, thus requiring the State to 3 present proof of its allegations. See, e.g., Carr v. State, No. 07-13-00159-CR, 2014 Tex.
App. LEXIS 2659, at *5–6 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Mar. 6, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op., not
designated for publication) (stating that, as a matter of State law, statutory requirements
set forth in articles 26.13 and 27.13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not apply to
revocation proceedings). See also Johnson v. State, No. 02-22-00195-CR, 2023 Tex.
App. LEXIS 2275, at *5–6 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Apr. 6, 2023, no pet.) (mem. op., not
designated for publication) (agreeing with conclusion in Carr and similar cases). Further,
even if the trial court was required to do so, the plea paperwork in the record establishes
that Appellant knew and was aware of the consequences of his plea.
Next, Appellant argues he was not, prior to entry of his pleas of true, informed of
the applicable range of punishment to which he was subject, i.e., five to 99 years of
imprisonment.
The requirement to admonish a defendant about the range of punishment arises
at the time of the initial plea prior to accepting a guilty plea. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art.
26.13. It does not strictly apply at the time of revocation. Id. Further, any error requires
reversal only if it affects the defendant’s substantial rights. TEX. R. APP. P. 44.2(a); Wyatt
v. State, 951 S.W.2d 144, 147 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, pet. ref’d). To show
harm, a defendant must prove that (1) he was not personally aware of the information
contained in the statutory admonishments, and (2) had he been given such
admonishments, he would not have entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere. Id.
Appellant claims the trial court failed to properly admonish him of the applicable
punishment range prior to his entering his pleas of true. He contends the written plea
admonishments are also silent on this point. He points to the admonishments presented 4 in conjunction with what would have been the agreed-upon plea prior to his forfeiture of
same by failing to timely appear. Those admonishments reference only the punishment
agreement of five years of imprisonment. However, the signed original written plea
admonishment and judicial confession each included the statement: “FIRST DEGREE
FELONY: Imprisonment for life or any term of not more than 99 years or less than 5 years
in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice; and in addition, a fine not to exceed $10,000
may be assessed.”5 Therefore, Appellant was admonished, and thus aware of, the
applicable punishment range well before he pleaded true to the State’s allegations.
Moreover, we note those admonishments also included a provision explaining an open
plea, which is ultimately what occurred in this matter after Appellant forfeited the agreed-
upon plea. And, the plea paperwork signed on August 7, 2025, included a provision
explicitly explaining the consequences of pleading true.6
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Brandon Wayne Patterson v. the State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brandon-wayne-patterson-v-the-state-of-texas-txctapp7-2026.