IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL C
JUNE 23, 2003
______________________________KERRY LEN BRADFORD,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee _________________________________
FROM THE 242ND DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;
NO. B12895-9802; HON. ED SELF, PRESIDING _______________________________
Before JOHNSON, C.J., and QUINN and REAVIS, JJ.
Kerry Len Bradford, appellant, appeals from an order revoking his probation. He asserts that the evidence was insufficient to show that he committed the new offense of using a motor vehicle in an unauthorized manner. We affirm.
BackgroundInitially, appellant pled guilty to the offense of possessing a controlled substance. Upon his plea and his stipulation to evidence confirming his guilt, the trial court convicted and sentenced him. However, the sentence was suspended, and he was placed on probation for five years. Thereafter, the State moved to revoke appellant's probation, contending that he violated two conditions of his probation. That is, it alleged that he committed offenses against the laws of Texas (i.e. the unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and the possession of a crack pipe) and failed to pay various fines, fees, and court costs as previously ordered. At the subsequent hearing upon the motion, appellant pled true to possessing a crack pipe and failing to pay the fine, fees, and costs as ordered. He denied committing the other offense, however. Thereafter, the trial court heard evidence on the matter of using the vehicle without consent and, "based upon [his] plea of true and the evidence presented" found that he had "violated the terms of [his] probation as alleged in the motion to revoke . . . probation." Consequently, appellant's community supervision was revoked, and he was sentenced to two years imprisonment in a state jail facility and assessed a $500 fine.
Issue OneAppellant contends, in his only issue, that the trial court erred in revoking his community supervision because the evidence was insufficient to illustrate that he used a motor vehicle in an unauthorized manner. We overrule the contention.
A plea of true to any one of the alleged violations contained in a motion to revoke is sufficient to support the trial court's order revoking probation. Moore v. State, 11 S.W.3d 495, 498 n.1 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.). Furthermore, once a plea of true has been entered, a defendant may not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the subsequent revocation. Id. Here, appellant pled true to violating several conditions of his probation. Thus, that plea was and is sufficient to support the trial court's order revoking his probation. That he now contends that the State failed to prove the allegation to which he pled not true is of no consequence for once he pled true to the other allegations, he could not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the subsequent revocation. Id.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court revoking appellant's community supervision.
Brian Quinn
Justice
Do not publish.
style="font-family: 'Arial', sans-serif">V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE
_________________________________
FROM THE 320TH DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;
NO. 52,293-D; HONORABLE RICHARD DAMBOLD, JUDGE
_______________________________
Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ.
ABATEMENT AND REMAND
Appellant, Joseph Mark Daigle, appeals from his conviction by jury of aggravated sexual assault of a child, enhanced, and sentence of 99 years of imprisonment. The trial court filed its certification representing that appellant has the right of appeal. However, the appellate record reflects that appellant failed to sign the certification, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellant Procedure 25.2(d), which requires the certification to be signed by appellant and a copy served on him. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d).
Consequently, we abate the appeal and remand the cause to the 320th District Court of Potter County for further proceedings. On remand, the trial court shall utilize whatever means it finds necessary to secure and file with this Court a certificate of right to appeal that complies with Rule 25.2(d). See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d).
If necessary, the trial court shall execute findings of fact, conclusions of law, and any necessary orders it may enter regarding the aforementioned issues and cause its findings, conclusions, and orders, if any, to be included in a supplemental clerk’s record. The trial court shall file the supplemental clerk’s record and the supplemental reporter’s record, if any, with the Clerk of this Court by September 8, 2008.
It is so ordered.
Per Curiam
Do not publish.