John Martin Charles Bailey v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 10th District (Waco)
• Decided: June 25, 2026
• Docket: 10-25-00213-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas

10-25-00213-CR

John Martin Charles Bailey, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

On appeal from the 413th District Court of Johnson County, Texas Judge William C. Bosworth Jr., presiding Trial Court Cause No. DC-F201700379

JUSTICE SMITH delivered the opinion of the Court.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

John Martin Charles Bailey pled guilty to assault family violence with

a prior conviction. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01(b)(2)(A). Pursuant to a

plea agreement, his ten-year prison sentence was suspended and he was placed

on community supervision for ten years. After a hearing on the State’s motion

to revoke, the trial court revoked his community supervision and sentenced

him to ten years in prison. In his sole issue on appeal, Bailey contends that the trial court’s sua sponte admonishments to a witness at the hearing violated

his Due Process rights. He asks that we vacate the judgment and remand to

the trial court for a new hearing. We affirm.

DISCUSSION

The State’s motion to revoke Bailey’s community supervision contained

seven alleged violations. At the revocation hearing, Bailey pled “true” to five

of the alleged violations, including failure to pay certain fees, fines, and costs,

and failure to complete community service. He pled “not true” to committing

a new assaultive offense and to unsuccessful discharge from his anger

management class. The trial court found “true” each allegation to which Bailey

pled “true,” as well as the new offense allegation.

Bailey’s Due Process complaint stems from the trial court deciding to

admonish the assault complainant during her testimony (and to appoint an

attorney to represent her) because of potential conflicts between her prior

statements to law enforcement and her testimony at the hearing. He argues

that he was harmed because the complainant changed her testimony after the

admonishments.

Bailey’s constitutional appellate complaint addresses only one of the

violations upon which the trial court’s revocation order is based. A single

violation may uphold the trial court’s revocation ruling so long as it is

John Martin Charles Bailey v. The State of Texas Page 2 unquestionably free of the alleged constitutional infirmity. Dansby v. State,

398 S.W.3d 233, 240-41 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). Bailey’s pleas of “true” to the

five allegations that are independent from the testimony allegedly affected by

the trial court’s admonishments are sufficient to support the trial court’s

revocation of his community supervision. See Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924,

926 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980). Further, regarding any alleged impact

on Bailey’s punishment, when community supervision is revoked, a trial court

may proceed to dispose of the case as if there had been no community

supervision. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42A.755(a)(1). Stated

differently, the trial court may impose the sentence originally assessed. Here,

the trial court imposed Bailey’s original ten-year sentence.

Accordingly, we overrule Bailey’s sole issue on appeal and affirm the

judgment of the trial court.

STEVE SMITH Justice

OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: June 25, 2026 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Affirmed Do not publish CR25

John Martin Charles Bailey v. The State of Texas Page 3