In a recent decision, the Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth upheld the trial court’s decision to revoke Kendrick Joel Sanders’s community supervision and sentence him to five years in prison. The case centered on allegations that Sanders had violated the terms of his community supervision by submitting diluted urine samples.
The Initial Plea and Community Supervision
In 2021, Sanders pleaded guilty to evading arrest or detention with a vehicle, a third-degree felony. He was given three years of deferred-adjudication community supervision, which is a type of probation. As part of his supervision, he was required to submit to regular drug and alcohol testing, providing non-diluted urine samples.
Multiple Allegations of Violations
Over the course of his supervision, Sanders faced multiple allegations of violating his community supervision conditions. The State filed several petitions, alleging that he had tested positive for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the active ingredient in marijuana, and had provided a diluted urine sample.
Initially, Sanders pleaded “true but” to the State’s allegations. This type of plea means he admitted the violations but offered an explanation. The trial court allowed Sanders to choose between going to prison or attending a Substance Abuse Felony Punishment Facility (SAFPF). He chose SAFPF, and his community supervision was extended.
Further Violations and the Final Hearing
After being released from SAFPF, Sanders was accused of submitting diluted urine samples on two separate occasions in May and June of 2024. At a hearing, he pleaded “true” to the first two allegations and “not true” to the diluted-urine allegation. The trial court found all three allegations true, adjudicated Sanders’s guilt, and sentenced him to five years in prison.
Sanders’s Arguments on Appeal
Sanders appealed the trial court’s decision, arguing that his “true” pleas to the first two allegations were not knowing and voluntary and that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s findings on all three allegations.
The Court’s Analysis: Focus on the Diluted Urine Samples
The appellate court focused on the allegation that Sanders had submitted diluted urine samples. Sanders testified that he had simply been drinking a lot of water. However, his community-supervision officer testified that Sanders’s urine samples on May 23, June 6, and June 11, 2024, were diluted, indicating a pattern.
The court noted that in a revocation proceeding, the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated at least one of the community-supervision conditions. This standard is met if the greater weight of the credible evidence creates a reasonable belief that the defendant has violated the condition. The trial court is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony.
The Court’s Decision: Affirming the Trial Court
The appellate court concluded that the trial court, as the sole judge of credibility, was entitled to disbelieve Sanders’s explanation that he had merely consumed a lot of water. The court pointed to the probation officer’s testimony that the three diluted samples indicated a pattern, and that Sanders had previously acknowledged similar violations.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling, the appellate court determined that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the allegation of diluted urine samples true. The court thus overruled Sanders’s arguments and affirmed the trial court’s judgment, upholding the five-year prison sentence.