In The
Court of Appeals
Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo
No. 07-26-00082-CR
ALEJANDRO LONGORIA, APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
On Appeal from the 46th District Court
Hardeman County, Texas
Trial Court No. 4678, Honorable Cornell Curtis, Presiding
August 11, 2026
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before DOSS and YARBROUGH and PRATT, JJ.
Appellant, Alejandro Longoria appeals from the judgment of the trial court revoking
his community supervision and imposing a previously suspended ten-year sentence for
aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury.1 He brings two issues on appeal. We
affirm.
1See TEX. PENAL CODE § 22.02(a)(1).
BACKGROUND
A November 2025 information charged Appellant with aggravated assault causing
serious bodily injury to Benjamin Romero. Appellant pleaded guilty. The trial court
assessed ten years of confinement, suspended the sentence, and placed Appellant on
community supervision for ten years. The conditions of supervision required, among
other things, that Appellant not initiate any communication with the victim, that he not go
within 200 feet of the victim, that he not consume alcohol, and that he pay a fine, court
costs, restitution, and monthly supervision fees.
In January 2026, the State moved to revoke, alleging two violations. Paragraph 1
alleged that Appellant failed to pay the required fines and fees. Paragraph 2 alleged that
on January 5, 2026, Appellant went within 200 feet of Romero. Appellant pleaded not
true to both. The alleged violations occurred less than sixty days after the trial court
imposed the conditions.
At the revocation hearing, Romero testified that Appellant entered a convenience
store, grabbed a six-pack of beer, spoke to him, and then, as Romero moved toward the
door, reached up and grabbed him by the neck. Romero testified that he froze, because
Appellant had previously struck him in the neck with a machete, and that he called 911.
The State offered surveillance video from the store, which the trial court admitted without
objection and viewed. At defense counsel’s request, the court also viewed the remainder
of the recording, which shows the two men remaining inside the store for roughly two
minutes after the contact.
2
Appellant’s supervision officer testified that Appellant had made no payment
toward his court-ordered obligations and was delinquent in an amount of $225.90. He
also testified that three weeks earlier he had instructed Appellant on what to do if he
encountered Romero: return to his vehicle and wait until Romero left.
Appellant testified on his own behalf. He said he did not know Romero was in the
store when he walked in and recognized him only when he heard his voice. Appellant
denied grabbing Romero’s throat but testified that he placed his hand on Romero’s chest.
He agreed that he should have walked out of the store instead. On his finances, Appellant
testified that he receives $840 per month in disability income, that he can barely pay his
rent, and that he has serious medical conditions, including colon cancer and a
pacemaker. He also testified that he paid $11 for the beer, and that consuming alcohol
violated his supervision.
The trial court found that Appellant was delinquent in the amount of $225.90 and
stated that “at least $11 of that could have been paid instead of purchasing alcohol.” The
court separately found that Appellant went within 200 feet of Romero on January 5, 2026.
The court revoked supervision and imposed the ten-year sentence. This appeal followed.
ANALYSIS
Sufficiency of the Evidence
Appellant’s first issue challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the
finding that he went within 200 feet of Romero. We review a trial court’s revocation order
for abused discretion. Hacker v. State, 389 S.W.3d 860, 865 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). A
trial court abuses its discretion when its decision lies outside the zone of reasonable
3
disagreement, is arbitrary or unreasonable, or ignores guiding rules or principles. Rhomer
v. State, 569 S.W.3d 664, 669 (Tex. Crim. App. 2019). The State need prove a violation
by a preponderance of the evidence. Hacker, 389 S.W.3d at 864–65. A trial court may
revoke if the State establishes a single violation of the terms of community supervision.
Dansby v. State, 398 S.W.3d 233, 241 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013).
We find the evidence to be sufficient to support the trial court’s order. Video
footage shows Appellant speaking to Romero inside the store and then placing his hand
on Romero’s neck as Romero moved to leave. Romero also testified to these matters.
Appellant acknowledges contact with Romero, placing his hand on Romero’s chest, and
admits he should have walked out instead. His supervision officer testified that Appellant
had been told three weeks earlier to return to his vehicle if he encountered Romero in a
store, that Appellant appeared to understand, and that no language barrier existed.
Appellant’s statements that he did not know Romero was in the store and that the
exchange was mutual were before the trial court; neither compels a different result.
Whatever the trial court made of how the encounter began, the evidence permitted a
finding that Appellant did not leave. He spoke to Romero and then touched him. It is the
role of the trial court to resolve potential conflicts in the evidence. Story v. State, 614
S.W.2d 162, 164 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). The evidence supports the trial court’s finding
that Appellant went within 200 feet of Romero. We overrule Appellant’s first issue.
Appellant’s Remaining Issue
Appellant’s second issue contends that revoking supervision for nonpayment
violated due process because the record shows an inability to pay rather than a refusal.
4
We need not reach this question. A single proven violation supports a revocation; we
have upheld the trial court’s finding that Appellant went within 200 feet of Romero. See
Dansby, 398 S.W.3d at 241. Because resolving the financial allegation could not change
the disposition, we decline to address it. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1.
CONCLUSION
Appellant’s first issue is dispositive. Having overruled it, we affirm the judgment of
the trial court.
Lawrence M. Doss
Justice
Do not publish.
5