11th Court of Appeals
Eastland, Texas
Opinion
Balaunda Polk Washington
Appellant
Vs. No. 11-02-00311-CR B Appeal from Dallas County
State of Texas
Appellee
This is an appeal from a judgment revoking community supervision. On June 7, 2002, the trial court convicted appellant, upon her plea of guilty, of possession of cocaine and assessed her punishment at confinement for two years in a state jail facility. However, the trial court suspended the imposition of the sentence and placed appellant on community supervision for two years. On July 25, 2002, the State filed a motion to revoke alleging that appellant used cocaine. At the hearing on the State=s motion, appellant entered a plea of true to the allegation that she violated the terms and conditions of her community supervision by using cocaine. The trial court found that appellant had violated the terms and conditions of her community supervision, revoked her community supervision, and imposed the original sentence of confinement for two years in a state jail facility. We modify and affirm.
Applicable Law
In a community supervision revocation hearing, the State has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a condition of community supervision has been violated. Jenkins v. State, 740 S.W.2d 435 (Tex.Cr.App.1983). Proof of one violation of the terms and conditions of community supervision is sufficient to support the revocation. McDonald v. State, 608 S.W.2d 192 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); Taylor v. State, 604 S.W.2d 175 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469 (Tex.Cr.App.1979). The trial court is the trier of the facts and determines the weight and credibility of the testimony. Garrett v. State, 619 S.W.2d 172 (Tex.Cr.App.1981); Barnett v. State, 615 S.W.2d 220 (Tex.Cr.App.1981). A plea of true alone is sufficient to support the trial court=s determination to revoke. Moses v. State, supra; Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127 (Tex.Cr.App.1979). Appellate review of an order revoking community supervision is limited to the issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion. Flournoy v. State, 589 S.W.2d 705 (Tex.Cr.App.1979).
Contentions on Appeal
In her first issue, appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking her community supervision. Specifically, appellant contends that testimony of her changed behavior and changed attitude supported her plea to be reinstated on community supervision. As noted above, proof of one violation as well as a plea of true by the defendant will support the trial court=s decision to revoke. The trial court did not abuse its discretion. The first issue is overruled.
In her second issue, appellant contends that the June 7, 2002, judgment of conviction incorrectly stated that a plea bargain agreement was reached. We agree. The plea papers reflected that appellant entered an open plea. The second issue is sustained, and the June 7, 2002, judgment of conviction is modified to reflect that appellant entered an open guilty plea.
This Court=s Ruling
The judgment of the trial court revoking appellant=s community supervision is affirmed. The June 7, 2002, judgment of conviction is modified to reflect that an open plea of guilty was entered.
TERRY McCALL
JUSTICE
May 1, 2003
Do not publish. See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Arnot, C.J., and
Wright, J., and McCall, J.