THE STATE OF TEXAS v. WILLIAM JOE NAVARRO (2026)

CONCURRING OPINION

Two months ago, this Court held that the Confrontation Clause does not apply to an adjudication of guilt hearing. Montgomery v. State, — S.W.3d —, No. PD-0581-22, 2026 WL 1899378, at *3 (Tex. Crim. App. July 2, 2026). Because this case presented the same issue as in Montgomery, this Court held this case for a decision in Montgomery.

We now refuse review. I join that decision because even if we were to grant review to reexamine Montgomery, a result in Appellee's favor would not change the outcome of this case. Appellee pleaded guilty to indecency with a child and was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for a period of ten years. The State moved to adjudicate Appellee, alleging nine violations of community supervision.

Only the evidence used by the State to prove allegation five was subject to a Confrontation Clause objection. But the trial court adjudicated Appellee and revoked his probation based on sufficient evidence that was not admitted in violation of the Confrontation Clause, namely allegations one through four and six. Consequently, granting Appellee's petition for discretionary review would result in nothing more than an advisory opinion, because Appellee's community supervision would still be revoked. E.g., Armstrong v. State, 805 S.W.2d 791, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991).

I would, however, grant review in the appropriate case to reexamine Montgomery. The Court's opinion in Montgomery failed to give effect to the special status of deferred adjudication probation and Ex parte Doan’s clear mandate that adjudication hearings “are judicial proceedings, to be governed by the rules established to govern judicial proceedings.” 369 S.W.3d 205, 212 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). I maintain the view that “the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause [clearly] applies to deferred adjudication probation hearings.” Montgomery, 2026 WL 1899378, at *13 (Finley, J., dissenting). We should abandon Montgomery before the constitutional rights of defendants continue to be eroded.

With these thoughts, I join the Court's decision to refuse review.

Finley, J., filed a concurring opinion.