CROSSOVER: The ‘Plea of True’ Trap: Why Statutory Admonishments Aren’t Required in Revocation and Enforcement Proceedings

Patterson v. State, 07-25-00311-CR, March 19, 2026.

On appeal from Criminal District Court 4, Tarrant County, Texas.

Synopsis

The Seventh Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment adjudicating guilt and sentencing a defendant to fifteen years’ imprisonment, holding that Article 26.13 statutory admonishments do not apply to revocation or adjudication proceedings. The court further clarified that due process does not require a trial court to specifically warn a defendant of the right to plead “not true,” nor is a failure to admonish on the punishment range reversible error when the defendant’s awareness of that range is evidenced elsewhere in the record.

Relevance to Family Law

While Patterson originates in the criminal sphere, its holding regarding the “Plea of True” trap is a critical cautionary tale for family law litigators handling enforcement proceedings and motions to revoke suspended commitment. In the high-stakes environment of contempt and enforcement—specifically where a client’s liberty is at risk for failure to pay child support or comply with possession orders—practitioners often mistakenly assume that the trial court must provide “criminal-style” admonishments before an admission of non-compliance can be used as a basis for incarceration. Patterson clarifies that if the respondent was put on notice of the potential consequences in the original order or initial pleadings, a subsequent “plea of true” or judicial admission will be upheld on appeal even if the trial court is entirely silent regarding the respondent’s rights at the moment the admission is made.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

Brandon Wayne Patterson was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for a period of five years in January 2021 after pleading guilty to a first-degree felony drug offense. In March 2025, the State moved to adjudicate his guilt, alleging multiple violations of his supervision terms. Patterson initially entered a negotiated plea agreement wherein he would plead “true” to certain allegations in exchange for a five-year sentence. This agreement was contingent upon his timely appearance in court on a specific date. When Patterson failed to appear on time, arriving over an hour late, he forfeited the agreed-upon sentence, and his plea of “true” became an “open plea” to the court. At the subsequent punishment hearing, the trial court found Patterson guilty, revoked his supervision, and sentenced him to fifteen years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Patterson appealed, arguing his plea was involuntary because the trial court failed to inform him of his right to plead “not true” and failed to admonish him regarding the applicable punishment range (five to 99 years) prior to accepting his plea.

Issues Decided

1. Whether a trial court’s failure to provide Article 26.13 statutory admonishments in a revocation or adjudication proceeding constitutes reversible error.
2. Whether due process requires a trial court to explicitly admonish a defendant of the right to plead “not true.”
3. Whether a defendant’s “plea of true” is rendered involuntary if the trial court fails to state the punishment range on the record, despite the range being included in the original plea paperwork and confirmed via the defendant’s testimony.

Rules Applied

• Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 26.13: Requires specific admonishments regarding punishment ranges and immigration consequences prior to accepting a plea of guilty; however, these requirements do not strictly apply to revocation or adjudication proceedings.
• Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 44.2(a): The standard for constitutional error, requiring reversal unless the court determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the conviction or punishment.
• Due Process Principles: While due process applies to revocation hearings, the requirements are less stringent than those in the initial guilt-innocence phase of a trial.
• Waiver of Appeal: A valid waiver of the right to appeal deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction, except where the voluntariness of the plea itself is challenged.

Application

The Court of Appeals began by addressing the jurisdictional hurdle of Patterson’s waiver of appeal. Because Patterson challenged the voluntariness of his plea—specifically that he was not informed of the consequences of pleading “true”—the court reached the merits of his claims. The court first rejected the statutory argument, noting that Texas law distinguishes between the initial entry of a plea and the subsequent revocation of supervision. As a matter of established State law, the formal admonishments required by Articles 26.13 and 27.13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are not mandatory in the revocation context.

Turning to the constitutional due process claims, the court found no requirement that a trial judge must “mirandize” a defendant regarding the right to plead “not true.” The court then analyzed whether Patterson was actually harmed by the alleged failure to admonish him on the punishment range. The court reviewed the “totality of the record,” noting that the original signed plea paperwork from 2021 explicitly detailed the first-degree felony range of five to 99 years. Furthermore, during the punishment hearing, Patterson testified and explicitly confirmed his understanding that the court had a “very wide range” of sentencing options up to 99 years or life. Because the record demonstrated that Patterson was personally aware of the stakes, his plea of “true” was deemed voluntary.

Holding

The Court of Appeals held that Article 26.13 statutory admonishments do not apply to revocation or adjudication proceedings, and a trial court is not required by due process to admonish a defendant of the right to plead “not true.”

The Court further held that a trial court’s failure to reiterate the punishment range during a revocation hearing does not constitute reversible error where the record—including original plea documents and the defendant’s own testimony—proves the defendant was personally aware of the potential sentence.

Practical Application

For the family law practitioner, this case emphasizes the finality of admissions made during enforcement litigation.

• The Admission is Sufficient: A “plea of true” or a judicial admission in an enforcement context is sufficient, standing alone, to support a revocation of suspended commitment.
• Pre-Revocation Counseling: Before a client admits to a violation of a child support or possession order, counsel must ensure the client understands the “open” nature of the sentencing if a Rule 11 agreement is breached.
• Documentation as Notice: Practitioners should be aware that notice provided in the original Order of Suspension or the Motion to Enforce will likely satisfy due process requirements, meaning a judge’s silence at the hearing will not provide a “get out of jail free” card on appeal.

Checklists

Managing the Enforcement Hearing

• Review the original Order of Suspension for clear language regarding the punishment range (e.g., 180 days per violation).
• Verify that the Motion to Revoke includes the specific allegations of non-compliance.
• Admonish the client in writing that a “plea of true” waives the State/Petitioner’s burden of proof.
• Ensure the client understands that any negotiated settlement (Rule 11) may be voided by procedural failures (like tardiness), leading to an “open” sentence.

Preserving the Record for Appeal

• Object specifically if the client’s admission is made without a clear understanding of the maximum possible incarceration.
• If a plea of “true” is entered, ensure the record reflects whether it was made “knowingly and voluntarily” to maintain appellate jurisdiction.
• Differentiate between statutory admonishments (which may not apply) and constitutional due process (which always applies).

Citation

Patterson v. State, 07-25-00311-CR (Tex. App.—Amarillo Mar. 19, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Full Opinion Link

Family Law Crossover

This ruling can be weaponized in Texas divorce or custody litigation when defending against attempts to vacate enforcement orders. It is common for a respondent, after being jailed for contempt or having a suspended commitment revoked, to hire new counsel and argue that their initial “admission” of the violation was invalid because the trial judge didn’t provide a formalistic warning of their rights. Patterson provides the definitive rebuttal: the trial court is not required to perform a ritualistic admonishment regarding the right to plead “not true.” If the respondent was notified of the stakes in the underlying motion or the original suspension order, their admission stands. This case is an essential tool for the Petitioner’s counsel to ensure that a respondent’s mid-hearing admission of non-payment or denial of access remains binding and unassailable on appeal.

~~08bf819e-1224-4670-a411-ed28520e9ad5~~