11th Court of Appeals
Eastland, Texas
Opinion
Ricky Soto Stokes
Appellant
Vs. No. 11-02-00189-CR - Appeal from Taylor County
State of Texas
Appellee
Appellant pleaded guilty to the offense of burglary of a habitation on September 1, 1995. The trial court suspended appellant=s sentence of confinement at that time by placing him on community supervision for a term of 10 years. On June 7, 2002, the trial court entered an order revoking appellant=s community supervision and sentencing him to 10 years confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant appeals the trial court=s judgment by asserting in his sole issue that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking community supervision. We affirm.
The State=s burden of proof in a revocation proceeding is by a preponderance of the evidence. See Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 874 (Tex.Cr.App.1993). It is the trial court=s duty to determine whether the allegations in the revocation motion are true. Langford v. State, 578 S.W.2d 737, 739 (Tex.Cr.App.1979). In a revocation proceeding, the trial court is the sole trier of the facts, the credibility of the witnesses, and the weight to be given to the evidence presented. Naquin v. State, 607 S.W.2d 583, 586 (Tex.Cr.App. [Panel Op.] 1980); Battle v. State, 571 S.W.2d 20, 21 (Tex.Cr.App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Consequently, appellate review of a trial court=s order revoking community supervision is limited to a determination of whether the trial court abused its discretion. Jackson v. State, 645 S.W.2d 303, 305 (Tex.Cr.App.1983); Lloyd v. State, 574 S.W.2d 159, 160 (Tex.Cr.App. [Panel Op.] 1978). In determining abuse of discretion, we view the evidence adduced at the revocation hearing in the light most favorable to the trial court=s findings. Jones v. State, 589 S.W.2d 419, 421 (Tex.Cr.App. [Panel Op.] 1979). Proof of any one alleged violation is sufficient to support an order revoking community supervision. See O=Neal v. State, 623 S.W.2d 660, 661 (Tex.Cr.App.1981). Moreover, it is well settled that a plea of true alone is sufficient to support revocation. See Clapper v. State, 562 S.W.2d 250, 250 (Tex.Cr.App.1978).
The State=s motion to revoke alleged that appellant had committed 16 violations of his conditions of community supervision. The trial court made a finding of Atrue@ with respect to 15 of these alleged violations.[1] Appellant pleaded true to two of the allegations which asserted that he tested positive for the use of marihuana on April 9, 2002, and March 15, 2002. Of the 13 contested allegations, 7 of them asserted that appellant possessed various controlled substances on or about December 27, 2001. The State presented evidence of appellant=s arrest on December 27, 2001, for driving while his license was suspended and outstanding warrants. The arresting officer testified that he found the controlled substances set forth in the allegations on appellant=s person and in the car that appellant was driving at the time.
Appellant=s plea of true to two of the allegations is significant. The trial court questioned appellant extensively regarding the consequences of pleading true to the allegations. Appellant indicated that he understood the consequences of his plea. When a plea of true is made, the sufficiency of the evidence may not be challenged. Rincon v. State, 615 S.W.2d 746, 747 (Tex.Cr.App. [Panel Op.] 1981); Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex.Cr.App. [Panel Op.] 1979). A Aplea of true, standing alone, is sufficient to support the revocation of probation.@ Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex.Cr.App. [Panel Op.] 1979). As such, appellant=s violation of the conditions of community supervision was supported solely by his plea of true. Moreover, the State presented ample evidence with respect to the contested allegations. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by revoking appellant=s community supervision. Appellant=s sole issue is overruled.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
March 13, 2003 PER CURIAM
Do not publish. See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, J., and
McCall, J., and Dickenson, S.J.[2]
[1]The State withdrew one of the allegations prior to the trial court=s ruling.
[2]Bob Dickenson, Retired Justice, Court of Appeals, 11th District of Texas at Eastland sitting by assignment.