Court of Appeals
Tenth Appellate District of Texas
10-24-00401-CR
10-24-00402-CR
Carl Randall Roppolo,
Appellant
v.
The State of Texas,
Appellee
On appeal from the
82nd District Court of Falls County, Texas
Judge Bryan F. Russ, Jr., presiding
Trial Court Cause Nos. 11330 & 11331
CHIEF JUSTICE JOHNSON delivered the opinion of the Court.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Carl Randall Roppolo brings this appeal in which he contends there was
insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s findings of true to the State’s
allegations that Roppolo had violated the terms and conditions of his
community supervision. We affirm.
A. Background
In May 2023, Carl Randall Roppolo pleaded guilty to the felony offenses
of violation of a court order (11330) and assault family violence with a previous
conviction for assault family violence (11331). See TEX. PEN. CODE ANN.
§§25.07, 22.01. The trial court found sufficient evidence to substantiate
Roppolo’s guilt, deferred adjudication of guilt, and placed Roppolo on
community supervision for a term of ten years in each cause.
On October 25, 2023, the State filed motions to adjudicate alleging
Roppolo had violated the terms and conditions of his probation. Roppolo pled
not true to the allegations in the State’s motions to adjudicate, and, after a
hearing on March 14, 2024, the trial court found that Roppolo had violated the
terms and conditions of his probation, found him guilty of both offenses,
assessed his punishment at five years in the penitentiary, and sentenced
Roppolo accordingly.
B. Authority
A trial court’s decision to adjudicate guilt is reviewed under an abuse of
discretion standard. Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493 (Tex. Crim. App.
1984). In a proceeding to adjudicate guilt following deferred adjudication
community supervision, the State must prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that the defendant violated a condition of community supervision. Id.
Roppolo v. State Page 2 A preponderance of the evidence exists when the greater weight of the credible
evidence creates a reasonable belief that the defendant violated a condition of
community supervision. Hacker v. State, 389 S.W.3d 860, 864-65 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2013). Proof of a single violation of community supervision is sufficient
to support an order adjudicating guilt. Jones v. State, 571 S.W.2d 191, 193
(Tex. Crim. App. 1978).
C. Discussion
Roppolo argues that the evidence is insufficient to support the trial
court’s finding that Roppolo had violated the terms and conditions of his
probation by (1) failing to report during the months of June, July, August, and
September of 2023; (2) failing to report his change of address; (3) failing to
complete community service; and (4) failing to complete an anger management
class. Specifically, as to the finding that he failed to report during June, July,
August, and September, Roppolo claims that he was sentenced to 160 days of
incarceration during the four months of non-reporting violations.
Roppolo’s probation officer, Rebecca Rogers, testified that her last
contact with Roppolo had been at his community supervision intake meeting
on May 30, 2023. She testified that Roppolo failed to report for June, July,
August, and September 2023, and had not reported at all since May 30, 2023,
up to and including the hearing date.
Roppolo v. State Page 3
On cross-examination, Roppolo questioned Rogers generally about
investigating criminal histories and arrests while a defendant is on community
supervision. Rogers stated that she checks a defendant’s criminal history
when they are placed on community supervision and that she will receive a
“flash notice” if a defendant is arrested while on probation. She stated that
she did not receive any flash notice or any other notice about Roppolo being
incarcerated during the four months of non-reporting. Roppolo asked
questions about potential periods of confinement in various counties, including
a 60-day sentence beginning on July 26, 2023, and a 100-day sentence
beginning on September 1, 2023. After some back and forth, Rogers stated
that she knew Roppolo was not incarcerated in June or most of July.
On redirect, Rogers clarified that she did not receive any flash notices of
Roppolo being arrested at any point while on probation. She also stated that
when Roppolo came in for intake on May 30, 2023, she “scheduled his next
appointment for June 7, 2023, and he never showed up for it.” Rogers also
reiterated that she knew Roppolo was not in jail for most of July 2023. Rogers
acknowledged that she did not know where he was in August and admitted
that it was possible that he was incarcerated in Bell County on other charges.
She also stated that if Roppolo had pled to a charge in September, she did not
know whether it was “for credit for time served or…to sit out additional time.”
Roppolo v. State Page 4
On recross, Roppolo asked Rogers if, hypothetically, the 60-day sentence
from July 26, 2023 was “time served,” would that mean he was in jail in June
and July. Rogers agreed that was a possibility. On a final redirect, the State
asked whether “time served” necessarily meant Roppolo had been in jail for the
two months prior to the July 26, 2023 plea. Rogers responded that “time
served” just meant Roppolo had at least 60 days of credit, but did not tell her
when exactly he may have been incarcerated prior to the plea.
In a probation revocation proceeding, the trial court is the sole trier of
facts, credibility of witnesses and weight to be given to testimony. Taylor v.
State, 604 S.W.2d 175, 179 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). Here, Rogers testified that
Roppolo failed to report for June, July, August, and September. Roppolo
attempted to provide reasons for not reporting through his cross-examination
questions regarding possible periods of confinement. However, questions and
statements made by trial counsel are not evidence. See Madden v. State, 242
S.W.3d 504, 509–10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007). While Rogers acknowledged it was
possible Roppolo was in jail for some parts of the period of non-reporting, she
maintained that she never received any notice of him being in jail during the
non-reporting months, nor is there any evidence in the record that shows
Roppolo was in jail during June, July, August, or September 2023. Ultimately,
Roppolo v. State Page 5 it is the province of the trial court to weigh the credibility and weight of the
evidence. See Taylor, 604 S.W.2d at 179.
Viewing all the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s
conclusion, we find that the evidence was sufficient for the trial court to
reasonably conclude, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that Roppolo
violated a condition of his community supervision. Since the evidence is
sufficient to support the finding that he violated at least one condition of
community supervision, we need not address Roppolo’s arguments as to the
other violations. See Jones, 571 S.W.2d at 193.
Therefore, we overrule Roppolo’s sole issue.
D. Conclusion
Having overruled Roppolo’s sole issue, we affirm the judgment of the
trial court.
MATT JOHNSON
Chief Justice
OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: July 9, 2026
Before Chief Justice Johnson,
Justice Smith, and
Justice Harris
Affirmed
Do not publish
CR25
Roppolo v. State Page 6