Judge finds injury-to-child allegation true, sentences defendant to eight years after probation-revocation hearing

A judge in the 252nd District Court found an allegation that a 2-year-old child suffered injuries consistent with abuse true and revoked part of Dalvius Williams’s probation, the court said during a hearing on a second amended motion to revoke unadjudicated probation.

The finding came after testimony from daycare staff, investigators with the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS), and a Beaumont police detective, who reviewed photographs of the child’s back and described the marks as “severe, indicative of an object that struck the child.” The judge also accepted Williams’s pleas of true to two probation violations and entered a not-true plea to one prior allegation.

The ruling matters because the court converted a contested probation hearing into a formal finding against Williams on the newly alleged count and imposed an eight-year Institutional Division sentence for possession of a controlled substance—one of the counts at issue—after determining there was sufficient evidence to find count 4 true.

Prosecutor Smith told the court the state had multiple witnesses to prove the new allegation. DFPS investigation supervisor Sherita Henson testified that the agency’s investigation concluded with a finding of “reason to believe” that physical abuse had occurred and that the injuries could not be attributed to sibling play or an accidental fall. Detective Leland Keen of the Beaumont Police Department said his investigation, which included interviews and review of forensic interview materials, led him to conclude the totality of evidence pointed to Williams’s responsibility.

Daycare teacher Shelby Hurd and Dewanna Wilson, director of the Amina Learning Center, testified they observed linear scratches and bruising on the child’s back in late October and photographed the marks; those images were admitted as state exhibits. Hurd said the child told staff that an older sibling had scratched him, while other witness accounts and the forensic interview materials later included statements that contradicted initial accounts.

Defense counsel Miguel Rojas (identified in the transcript as Mr. Rojas) told the court Williams had been offered a four-year cap on a plea to resolve both the possession and the injury-to-a-child case, but Williams rejected that offer. Rojas asked the court to consider a lesser term on the possession case if the court did not keep Williams on probation. The prosecutor asked the court to revoke probation outright and requested five to ten years on the possession case.

After hearing argument, the presiding judge announced findings: pleas of true to counts 1 and 2 were freely and voluntarily entered and were found true; count 3 was entered as not true; and based on the evidence presented that day the court found count 4 true. The judge sentenced Williams to eight years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division on the possession count, with credit for any lawful time already served, and provided written admonishments about firearm-possession ineligibility and appellate rights.

Court records and testimony in the hearing also reflect child-protection steps taken outside the criminal process: DFPS confirmed a safety plan and that the child and siblings were placed with the child’s grandmother; DFPS said the file contained a forensic assessment report (FACN) that characterized some lesions as “associated pruritus” and otherwise described the findings as “nonspecific for child physical abuse” without additional context. DFPS and the detective both told the court that additional context gathered during the investigation informed their determinations.

The judge noted the defendant’s prior criminal history and prior injury-to-a-child matter and commented that the present case reflected similar conduct. The court documented its review of an updated presentence/post-sentence report and jail incident reports before imposing sentence. The court also modified the trial-court certification paperwork to reflect that the proceeding was not a plea agreement and explained Williams’s right to appeal.

The court adjourned after formal entry of findings and sentencing.