Judge revokes Eric Cantu’s community supervision and sentences him to two years in prison

The 187th District Court revoked Eric Cantu’s community supervision and sentenced him to two years in prison after finding alleged violations true in two motions to revoke, the court said during a contested hearing. The rulings apply to cause numbers 2024CR1237 and 2024CR1238 and will run concurrently.

The state asked the court to grant its motion to revoke and return Mr. Cantu to his underlying sentence. The prosecutor argued that the text-message exhibits (state exhibits 16–22) undermined the defense’s account of why Mr. Cantu went to the complainant’s home and characterized the conduct as family violence, saying in argument that the messages showed anger and accusations rather than concern for a child.

Defense counsel urged the court to consider the circumstances that led Mr. Cantu to the location, including his stated fear for the safety of his then‑one‑year‑old daughter and a history of trauma after a 2022 shooting. The defense acknowledged evidence supporting one violation but asked the judge, if revocation were ordered, to limit punishment to two years and to note Mr. Cantu’s need for mental-health treatment.

"Everything bad that Eric Cantu has ever done started after that night that he was shot by the police department," defense counsel said, urging the court to consider PTSD and mitigation in sentencing.

The prosecutor replied that the defendant’s texts contained no reference to a child and instead included messages the state read into the record, arguing that the complainant had called 911 multiple times and that the evidence supported revocation and prison time.

After hearing argument and reviewing testimony, the judge found violations 1 and 21 true on both motions. "The court is gonna sentence you to two years in the prison, give you credit for any time served," the judge stated, and said the sentence on 2024CR1238 would run concurrently with 2024CR1237. The written judgment will request placement in a therapeutic community and the mental-health unit, but the judge noted the facility must accept the placement and the defendant must request it for placement to occur.

The judgment imposes no contact with the complainant and prohibits unsupervised contact with minors; the court confirmed the defendant’s limited right to appeal is limited to the allegations in the motion rather than the fact of community supervision. The judge also reminded the defendant that, as felony convictions, he is not allowed to possess weapons or ammunition.

The docket also reflected a probation recommendation discussed on the record (alternate placement in ISF followed by ISB), and the court said it would credit Mr. Cantu for successful completion of any prior inpatient treatment. The court concluded by instructing parties on filing and appeal-notification procedures.

The hearing record includes testimony from the complainant and multiple evidentiary exhibits; the court’s findings and the sentence announced in court were the most recent dispositive actions taken at the proceeding.