IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-07-00157-CR
JULIO CESAR CRUZ MALDONADO,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 18th District Court
Johnson County, Texas
Trial Court No. F35985
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Julio Cesar Cruz Maldonado appeals the trial court’s revocation of his
community supervision and imposition of a ten-year prison sentence. We will affirm.
On ten years’ community supervision for two counts of assault on a public
servant, Maldonado pled “true” to four allegations in the State’s Motion to Revoke
Community Supervision. Maldonado admitted that he was convicted of theft, failed to
pay his community supervision fee, failed to report to his supervision officer, and failed
to complete his court appointed community service. The trial court revoked his
community supervision and sentenced him to ten-years confinement subject to
reinstatement of probation after successful completion of “shock probation.”
Maldonado successfully completed his “shock probation” and the court reinstated his
community supervision. The following day, the State reported Maldonado to the
Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency and he was deported. Maldonado later
returned to the U.S.
A second motion to revoke was filed after Maldonado’s return, alleging that he
failed to: pay his supervision and crime stoppers fees and complete his community
service hours. The court held a second hearing in which Maldonado again pled “true”
to the allegations against him. Following the hearing, the court sentenced Maldonado
to his original ten-year sentence. Maldonado appeals, asserting that the trial court
abused its discretion in revoking his probation and imposing the maximum period of
confinement.
To overturn a revocation order, a defendant must successfully challenge each
finding on which the revocation is based. Harris v. State, 160 S.W.3d 621, 626 (Tex.
App.—Waco 2005, pet. dism’d). However, a defendant cannot challenge a revocation
finding on an allegation to which he pled “true.” Id. (citing Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127,
128 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979)).
Maldonado’s plea of “true” is sufficient to support the revocation of his
community supervision. Cole, 578 S.W.2d at 128. Further, the punishment was within
the range provided by statute. Accordingly, we overrule his sole issue and affirm the
judgment of the trial court.
Maldonado v. State Page 2
BILL VANCE
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Vance, and
Justice Reyna
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed December 17, 2008
Do not publish
[CR25]
Maldonado v. State Page 3