Memorandum Opinion by Justice Yarbrough, 07-25-00283-CR, January 28, 2026.
On appeal from the 84th District Court, Ochiltree County
Synopsis
The Seventh Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment adjudicating guilt and a twelve-month state jail sentence following an Anders review, concluding that no non-frivolous grounds for appeal existed. The court’s decision underscores the finality of “pleas of true” to community supervision violations, which effectively terminate the viability of an evidentiary challenge on appeal.
Relevance to Family Law
For the Texas family law practitioner, this criminal affirmance is a reminder that the transition from deferred adjudication to a final conviction is a “material and substantial change” catalyst. When a party in a Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship (SAPCR) moves from the limbo of deferred adjudication to a formal adjudication of guilt and subsequent incarceration, the legal landscape regarding conservatorship and possession shifts immediately. A final judgment of conviction, especially one supported by twenty-two found violations of supervision, provides a nearly unassailable evidentiary basis to modify existing orders under Texas Family Code § 156.101.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Antonio Thomas-Edwardo Montoya was originally placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for three years in April 2023 for possession of a controlled substance (less than one gram). In August 2025, the State moved to adjudicate his guilt, alleging thirty-six distinct violations of his supervision terms, primarily involving failures to report to his supervision officer and failure to notify the officer of new arrests. During the adjudication hearing, the State abandoned eleven allegations. Montoya entered “pleas of true” to twenty allegations and “not true” to five. Following the presentation of testimony, the trial court found twenty-two allegations to be true, formally adjudicated Montoya’s guilt for the original felony offense, and sentenced him to twelve months in a state jail facility along with a $2,000 fine.
Issues Decided
The primary issue was whether any non-frivolous grounds for appeal existed to challenge the trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt and the resulting sentence after Montoya’s counsel filed an Anders brief.
Rules Applied
The court applied the framework established in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008), which governs the withdrawal of counsel in criminal appeals deemed frivolous. Substantively, the court relied on the principle that a single violation of the conditions of community supervision is sufficient to support a trial court’s decision to adjudicate guilt. The court also adhered to Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 48.4 regarding counsel’s ministerial duties following withdrawal.
Application
The appellate court’s analysis followed the mandatory independent review process triggered by an Anders filing. Counsel for Montoya certified that a professional evaluation of the record yielded no plausible basis for reversal, specifically noting the effect of Montoya’s admissions. In the narrative of the appeal, the court observed that Montoya’s “pleas of true” to twenty separate violations served as a judicial confession of his failure to comply with the court’s previous orders. Because the trial court only needs to find one violation by a preponderance of the evidence to proceed to adjudication, the overwhelming evidence—compounded by the appellant’s own admissions—left no room for a non-frivolous challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. The court confirmed that all procedural safeguards were met, including providing the appellant with the record and the opportunity to file a pro se response, which he declined.
Holding
The Court of Appeals held that, after an independent examination of the record, there were no non-frivolous issues to support an appeal. The court agreed with counsel’s assessment that the appeal was wholly frivolous and lacked a plausible basis for reversal.
The court further held that the trial court’s Judgment Adjudicating Guilt must be affirmed. Consequently, the court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, while noting the ongoing ministerial duty to inform the appellant of his right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review.
Practical Application
In family law litigation, particularly in high-conflict custody cases, this opinion demonstrates how a criminal adjudication can be used as a “hammer” in a modification suit. When a parent enters a “plea of true” to violations of supervision—such as failure to report or new arrests—those admissions can be imported into the civil record as judicial admissions or statements against interest. The fact that the Seventh Court found no non-frivolous grounds to challenge such an adjudication means the family law practitioner can rely on the criminal judgment’s finality with high confidence.
Checklists
Leveraging the Adjudication in a SAPCR Modification:
- Obtain the “Judgment Adjudicating Guilt” and the “Motion to Adjudicate.”
- Review the “Plea of True” transcript to identify specific admissions (e.g., drug use, arrests).
- File a Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of “material and substantial change” based on the final conviction and incarceration.
- Use the conviction to argue for supervised possession under the Best Interest of the Child (BIC) standard.
Mitigating the Impact (For the Adjudicated Parent):
- Argue that the underlying offense (e.g., possession <1g) does not inherently relate to parenting abilities or the child’s safety.
- Distinguish between technical violations (failure to report) and substantive violations (new violent crimes).
- Focus on “rehabilitation” evidence if the adjudication resulted in a short state-jail sentence.
Citation
Montoya v. State, No. 07-25-00283-CR (Tex. App.—Amarillo Jan. 28, 2026, no pet.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
This ruling is a strategic asset for “weaponization” in Texas divorce and custody litigation. When a party transitions from deferred adjudication to a final conviction, they lose the “presumption of innocence” that they might have previously touted in a temporary orders hearing.
Practically, this case allows a family law attorney to argue that the parent’s instability—evidenced by twenty-two violations of court-ordered supervision—is a direct reflection of their inability to comply with a Standard Possession Order (SPO). If the parent cannot follow the rules of the 84th District Court to stay out of jail, you should argue they cannot be trusted to follow the “notice of intent to exercise possession” or “geographic restriction” provisions of a custody decree. Furthermore, the 12-month state jail sentence creates a physical impossibility of possession, allowing the non-incarcerated parent to seek a modification that limits the incarcerated parent’s access to electronic communication or restricted visitation upon release.
~~70000353-6006-41f1-bf9d-992f8c32bc33~~
Share this content: