Matthew Session v. State

                                                             11th Court of Appeals

                                                                  Eastland, Texas

                                                                        Opinion

 

Matthew Session

Appellant

Vs.                   No. 11-02-00066-CR B Appeal from Taylor County

State of Texas

Appellee

 

Appellant was originally convicted, upon his plea of guilty, of possession of cocaine with the intent to deliver.  The trial court assessed punishment at confinement of 10 years and a $1,000 fine.  Pursuant to the plea bargain agreement, the imposition of the confinement portion of the sentence was suspended, and appellant was placed on community supervision for 10 years.  At the hearing on the State=s amended motion to revoke, appellant entered a plea of true to all 9 allegations.  The trial court found all 9 allegations to be true, revoked appellant=s community supervision, and imposed the original sentence of confinement for 10 years.  We affirm.

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).

Appellant=s plea of true to the nine allegations is sufficient to support the trial court=s actions.  Appellant has not established that the trial court abused its discretion.

 


The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

 

PER CURIAM

 

February 6, 2003

Do not publish.  See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Arnot, C.J., and

Wright, J., and McCall, J.