Salus Populi Suprema Lex Esto

About MoreLaw
Contact MoreLaw

Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 01-26-2018

Case Style:

Ronald Mullins v. The State of Texas

Aggravated sexual assault of a child.

Case Number: 06-17-00134-CR

Judge: Ralph K. Burgess

Court: Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

Plaintiff's Attorney: Henry Whitley
Jim Wheeler

Defendant's Attorney: Matt Patton and
Tony Wright

Description: In 2010, Ronald Mullins pled guilty to and was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of
a child.1 While the trial court sentenced Mullins to ten years’ imprisonment and ordered him to
pay a $2,500.00 fine, it suspended the imposition of the sentence in favor of placing Mullins on
community supervision for ten years. Mullins’ community supervision was revoked after the trial
court found true the State’s allegation that he violated a term of his community supervision by
coming into contact with neighborhood children and failing to remove himself from their presence.
As a result, the trial court imposed the previously suspended sentence and ordered that it be served
consecutively with an identical sentence assessed in cause number 06-17-00133-CR.
Mullins appeals from the trial court’s decision to revoke his community supervision in this
case and in cause number 06-17-00133-CR. He has filed a single brief in which he raises issues
common to both appeals. Specifically, Mullins argues (1) that the State failed to meet its burden
of proof on the allegation contained in its revocation motion and (2) that the trial court erred in
cumulating the sentence in this case with the sentence in cause number 06-17-00133-CR. We
addressed these issues in detail in our opinion of this date on Mullins’ appeal in cause number 06
17-00133-CR. For the reasons stated therein, we likewise conclude that error has not been shown
in this case.

Outcome: However, because the trial court’s judgment mistakenly recited that Mullins pled “true” to the allegation in the State’s motion to revoke, we must modify the trial court’s judgment to reflect that Mullins pled “not true” to the allegation. As modified, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:


Home | Add Attorney | Add Expert | Add Court Reporter | Sign In
Find-A-Lawyer By City | Find-A-Lawyer By State and City | Articles | Recent Lawyer Listings
Verdict Corrections | Link Errors | Advertising | Editor | Privacy Statement
© 1996-2018 MoreLaw, Inc. - All rights reserved.