Elfego Lozano, Jr. v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 163rd District Court of Orange County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
_________________
NO. 09-10-00494-CR
_________________
ELFEGO LOZANO, JR., Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
________________________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the 163rd District Court
Orange County, Texas
Trial Cause No. B-070128-R
________________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this appeal, Elfego Lozano, Jr. challenges the trial court’s decision to revoke
his probation. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
Lozano pled guilty to burglarizing a habitation, and the trial court sentenced him
to ten years in prison. Subsequently, after Lozano had served approximately thirty-two
weeks of his sentence, the trial court suspended Lozano’s remaining sentence and ordered
that he serve the remainder as a probated sentence.
1
In December 2009, the State filed a motion requesting that the trial court revoke
Lozano’s probation. During the revocation hearing, Lozano pled “true” to having twice
tested positive for marijuana. The positive tests violated the conditions the trial court had
established when it placed Lozano on probation.1 Lozano also pled “true” to the
allegation that he had failed to pay certain fees and expenses. Lozano pled “not true” to
the other alleged grounds that he had violated the trial court’s probation order.
After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court accepted Lozano’s pleas of “true” and
found those allegations to be true. The trial court also found that Lozano had violated the
other conditions that he denied having violated. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial
court revoked its probation order and sentenced Lozano to ten years in prison.
In a single issue, Lozano argues the evidence was insufficient to revoke his
probation. We review a revocation order under an abuse of discretion standard. Cardona
v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493-94 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). In a revocation proceeding, the
State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated the terms
and conditions of his probation. Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim. App.
1993). A plea of true to any one of the alleged violations is sufficient to support the trial
court’s order of revocation. Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel
Op.] 1979); Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979).
1
One of the conditions the trial court established in placing Lozano on probation
required that he “[a]bstain from the use or possession of any drugs, except those taken or
possessed under doctors orders[,]” and another condition that required him to submit to
testing for alcohol or controlled substances and “not have a positive test result at
anytime[.]”
2
Lozano pled “true” to testing positive for marijuana. Because a single violation is
sufficient to support the trial court’s decision, Lozano has failed to show that the trial
court abused its discretion by revoking his placement on probation. “We need not address
appellant’s other contentions since one sufficient ground for revocation will support the
court’s order to revoke probation.” Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1980).
Having overruled Lozano’s sole issue, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
AFFIRMED.
___________________________
HOLLIS HORTON
Justice
Submitted on September 15, 2011
Opinion Delivered September 28, 2011
Do Not Publish
Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ.
3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
