Adjudicated Prostitution: Leveraging Criminal ‘Pleas of True’ as Conclusive Evidence in SAPCR Litigation
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Yarbrough, 07-25-00317-CR, February 05, 2026.
On appeal from the 396th District Court of Tarrant County.
Synopsis
The Seventh Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt for the felony offense of promoting prostitution following the appellant’s entry of “pleas of true” to ten alleged violations of community supervision. The Court held that a plea of true, standing alone, constitutes sufficient evidence to support a revocation and adjudication of guilt, rendering the subsequent Anders appeal meritless.
Relevance to Family Law
For the family law practitioner, this criminal affirmance underscores the evidentiary finality of a “plea of true” in the context of deferred adjudication. In SAPCR or divorce litigation involving allegations of criminal conduct or moral turpitude—specifically promoting prostitution—this ruling highlights that a party’s admission in criminal court serves as a nearly insurmountable hurdle in subsequent litigation. When a parent or spouse admits to violations of community supervision in a criminal forum, that “plea of true” can be leveraged in civil court as a judicial admission, effectively precluding them from contesting the underlying conduct during a “best interest” analysis under Tex. Fam. Code § 153.002.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Appellant CB Sanders was originally placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for an eight-year term following a plea agreement for the third-degree felony offense of promoting prostitution. In July 2025, the State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt, asserting ten distinct violations of Sanders’s community supervision conditions. At the subsequent hearing, Sanders entered a plea of “true” to every allegation presented by the State. The trial court, after considering the evidence and the admissions, adjudicated Sanders guilty of the original offense and sentenced him to four years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Sanders appealed, prompting his court-appointed counsel to file an Anders brief asserting that the appeal was frivolous.
Issues Decided
The primary issue was whether the record presented any nonfrivolous grounds for appeal after a defendant enters a plea of true to community supervision violations and the trial court adjudicates guilt based on those admissions.
Rules Applied
The Court applied the Anders v. California framework, which requires an appellate court to conduct an independent review of the record when counsel claims an appeal is frivolous. Substantively, the Court relied on Tapia v. State and Zaal v. State, which establish that a plea of true, standing alone, is sufficient to support the revocation of community supervision and an adjudication of guilt. The Court also adhered to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 41.3 regarding transfer precedents between the Second and Seventh Courts of Appeals.
Application
In its narrative analysis, the Court reviewed the procedural history of the Anders filing, noting that counsel had fulfilled all ministerial duties, including providing the record to the appellant and informing him of his right to file a pro se response. Despite the appellant filing a pro se response, the Court’s independent examination of the record focused on the legal effect of the “pleas of true.” Because Sanders admitted to the violations in open court, the State’s evidentiary burden was satisfied instantly. The Court determined that because a plea of true is legally sufficient to support the trial court’s judgment, there were no arguable issues regarding the sufficiency of the evidence or the propriety of the adjudication.
Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s Judgment Adjudicating Guilt. The Court held that the appellant’s pleas of true to the State’s allegations provided an adequate legal basis for the adjudication of guilt and the resulting sentence.
Furthermore, the Court granted counsel’s motion to withdraw. The Court concluded that after a thorough and independent review of the record, there were no plausible bases for reversal, and the appeal was wholly frivolous.
Practical Application
This case serves as a strategic reminder for family litigators dealing with an adverse party who has a “checkered” criminal history involving deferred adjudication. A motion to adjudicate guilt in the criminal realm often moves faster than a complex SAPCR. If the adverse party pleads “true” to violations—especially those involving drugs, violence, or moral turpitude like prostitution—that plea should be immediately secured via a certified transcript and judgment for use in the family law matter. It effectively silences the party’s ability to deny the conduct in the 396th District Court and, by extension, the family court.
Checklists
Leveraging Criminal Admissions in Family Court
- Secure the Criminal Record
- Obtain a certified copy of the Motion to Adjudicate Guilt (to see the specific allegations).
- Obtain the Judgment Adjudicating Guilt (noting the “Plea to Motion: TRUE”).
- Order the Court Reporter’s record of the adjudication hearing to capture the oral admission.
- Evidentiary Strategy
- File a Notice of Intent to Use Judicial Admissions.
- Prepare a Trial Brief on the collateral estoppel effect of a “Plea of True” regarding the underlying conduct.
- Utilize the admission to trigger the rebuttable presumption against joint managing conservatorship if the underlying conduct involves family violence or other qualifying offenses under § 153.004.
Mitigating the “Plea of True” Impact (If representing the Adjudicated Party)
- Rehabilitation Evidence
- Focus on “present” best interest rather than contesting the “true” plea.
- Gather evidence of compliance with terms prior to the violation.
- Prepare testimony explaining the context of the plea (e.g., plea bargaining for a lower sentence) while acknowledging the legal finality of the admission.
Citation
Sanders v. State, No. 07-25-00317-CR, 2026 Tex. App. LEXIS ___ (Tex. App.—Amarillo Feb. 5, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
In Texas family law, the “moral environment” of a child is a frequent point of contention. An adjudication for “Promoting Prostitution” (Tex. Penal Code § 43.03) is a powerful tool in a custody battle. Because the Seventh Court has reaffirmed that a “plea of true” is sufficient for a criminal conviction, family law practitioners can weaponize this by arguing that the party is judicially estopped from denying the conduct in a civil setting.
Strategically, if you are representing the parent seeking to restrict access, you should use this ruling to argue that the adjudicated parent’s judgment is final and the underlying conduct is undisputed. This bypasses the need for you to call witnesses to prove the prostitution promotion or the supervision violations; the “Plea of True” in the criminal record does the work for you, allowing you to focus your trial time on the psychological impact of that environment on the child and the statutory “best interest” factors.
~~7ba0260a-fb2a-41ae-a7fa-6ee3f88c5993~~
Share this content:
