Terry Lewis Day v. The State of Texas Appeal from 35th District Court of Brown County (memorandum opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Opinion filed February 11, 2021 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ No. 11-19-00087-CR __________ TERRY LEWIS DAY, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 35th District Court Brown County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CR19701 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Terry Lewis Day, pleaded guilty to the offense of indecency with a child. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 21.11(a)(2)(A) (West 2019). The trial court deferred the adjudication of Appellant’s guilt and placed Appellant on community supervision for a period of eight years. Near the end of that period, the State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt. Ultimately, Appellant’s community supervision was modified and extended for an additional two years. Subsequently, the State moved to adjudicate Appellant’s guilt on the grounds that he had violated five conditions of his community supervision. At the hearing on the motion to adjudicate, the State waived one of its allegations, and Appellant pleaded “not true” to the remaining four allegations. After it found the four allegations in the State’s motion to be true, the trial court adjudicated Appellant guilty of the offense of indecency with a child, revoked his community supervision, and assessed punishment at imprisonment for two years. On appeal, Appellant only challenges three of the trial court’s findings. We affirm. When it revoked Appellant’s community supervision, the trial court made the following findings: (1) Appellant failed to submit to a polygraph test; (2) Appellant possessed and used a computer with access to the internet without prior approval; (3) Appellant viewed, received, downloaded, transmitted, or possessed pornographic, sexually oriented material, or nude images; and (4) Appellant failed to install, at his expense, any hardware or software systems to monitor his computer use. On appeal, Appellant does not raise any challenge with respect to the trial court’s third finding. Therefore, because one sufficient ground will support a trial court’s revocation order, we need not address Appellant’s issues on appeal. Smith v. State, 286 S.W.3d 333, 342 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Sanchez v. State, 603 S.W.2d 869, 871 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980); Gobell v. State, 528 S.W.2d 223, 224 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975); see TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1. We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it revoked Appellant’s community supervision. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. W. STACY TROTTER February 11, 2021 JUSTICE Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter, J., and Williams, J. 2
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.
