Keandre Marquis Robinson v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 3, 2025
• Docket: 09-24-00094-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________ NO. 09-24-00094-CR ________________

KEANDRE MARQUIS ROBINSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee ________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. F22-41238 ________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On October 30, 2023, Appellant, Keandre Marquis Robinson, pled guilty to

the first-degree felony offense of aggravated robbery, and pursuant to a plea-bargain

agreement, he was fined $500 and placed on deferred adjudication community

supervision for five years. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.03. On January 2, 2024,

the State moved to revoke Robinson’s unadjudicated community supervision,

alleging Robinson violated the Deferred Adjudication Order by: (1) committing the

offense of Murder on or about December 30, 2023; (2) failing to provide verification

1 of performing required community service hours; (3) possessing a firearm on or

about December 30, 2023; and (4) failing to pay court-assessed fees as directed,

resulting in an arrearage of $212 as of January 2, 2024.

During the hearing on the State’s motion to revoke, Robinson pled “not true”

to the State’s first and third allegations but pled “true” to the second and fourth.

Finding that Robinson freely and voluntarily pled “true” to counts two and four, the

trial court found sufficient evidence to find Robinson guilty and revoke his

probation. At the sentencing hearing held two weeks later, the State introduced

evidence regarding counts one and three, including the testimony of four witnesses,

a surveillance video, a police interview of Robinson, and several photos. The trial

court took judicial notice of its file, including an updated presentence report and two

reports from Dr. Edward Gripon regarding Robinson’s competency and sanity. At

the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found counts one and three true and

noted Robinson had already pled “true” to counts two and four. The trial court then

found Robinson guilty of aggravated robbery and sentenced him to life in prison.

Robinson appealed, asserting the trial court erred when it admitted two

exhibits during the sentencing hearing. Specifically, Robinson argues the trial court

erred by not granting his motion to suppress his police interrogation interview and

by allowing the surveillance video into evidence without proper authentication. The

State responds that it is not necessary for this Court to address Robinson’s issues

2 because he pled “true” to counts two and four, either of which was sufficient to

support the trial court’s revocation of probation and adjudication of guilt. We agree

with the State.

At a revocation hearing, the State bears the burden of establishing by a

preponderance of the evidence that the defendant has violated a condition of his

community supervision. Staten v. State, 328 S.W.3d 901, 905 (Tex. App.—

Beaumont 2010, no pet.). “A plea of true, standing alone, is sufficient to support the

revocation of community supervision and adjudicate guilt.” Tapia v. State, 462

S.W.3d 29, 31 n.2 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (citing Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924,

926 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980)). “[P]roof of a single violation will support

revocation.” Garcia v. State, 387 S.W.3d 20, 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). “Courts

may revoke community supervision for a violation of any condition, including

violations of any single ‘technical’ condition.” Nurridin v. State, 154 S.W.3d 920,

924 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, no pet.). “‘Technical’ violations are typically those

that involve the probationer’s failure to report to the probation officer as directed by

the trial court, pay various community supervision fees, perform community service

at the specified rate, or obey other conditions that have nothing to do with obeying

‘the laws of this State or of any other State or of the United States.’” Coffel v. State,

242 S.W.3d 907, 909 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007, no pet.) (quoting Tex. Code

Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12).

3 “We review a trial court’s order revoking a defendant’s placement on

community supervision for abuse of discretion.” Staten, 328 S.W.3d at 904-05. Even

if the trial court erred in admitting the evidence in question, and even if in the

absence of such evidence the trial court could not have found that Robinson violated

the conditions of his community supervision as alleged in counts one and three, the

trial court was nevertheless within its discretion to revoke Robinson’s community

supervision and adjudicate him guilty of aggravated robbery, because Robinson pled

“true” to counts two and four, either of which is sufficient to support the trial court’s

rulings. See Garcia, 387 S.W.3d at 26; Tapia, 462 S.W.3d at 31 n.2. We, therefore,

conclude that we need not address Robinson’s issues, because any error with respect

to the trial court’s admission of evidence relevant to counts one and three is harmless

in light of Robinson’s pleas of “true” regarding counts two and four. See Tex. R.

App. P. 44.2(b), 47.1.

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

AFFIRMED.

KENT CHAMBERS Justice

Submitted on June 26, 2025 Opinion Delivered December 3, 2025 Do Not Publish

Before Johnson, Wright and Chambers, JJ.