|
|
|
|
Opinion filed April 19, 2007
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
__________
No. 11-06-00316-CR
__________
JEFFERY DALE MEDLOCK, Appellant
V.
STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 142nd District Court
Midland County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CR28886
O P I N I O N
This is an appeal from a judgment revoking community supervision. We affirm.
Procedural Background
Jeffery Dale Medlock originally entered a plea of guilty to the offense of burglary of a building. Pursuant to the plea bargain agreement, the trial court deferred the adjudication of appellant=s guilt, placed him on community supervision for two years, and assessed a $500 fine. After a hearing on the State=s motion to adjudicate, the trial court found that the allegations that appellant had violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision were true, revoked his community supervision, adjudicated his guilt, and assessed his punishment at confinement for two years. However, the trial court suspended the imposition of the sentence and placed appellant on Aregular@ community supervision for four years.
At the hearing on the State=s 2005 motion to revoke, appellant entered pleas of true to the allegations that he had violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision and entered into a plea agreement to extend the duration of his community supervision and to amend his terms and conditions to include community service and a $500 fine. The trial court followed the plea bargain agreement. At the hearing on the State=s 2006 motion for revocation, appellant entered pleas of true to the State=s allegations that he had violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision. A plea bargain agreement was not reached. The trial court determined that appellant had violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision, found the allegations to be true, and imposed a sentence of confinement in a state jail facility for twenty-four months. Appellant now perfects this appeal.
Issue on Appeal
In his sole issue on appeal, appellant contends that the trial court erred in sentencing him to confinement when Aother alternatives suggested by Appellant at Appellant=s October 19, 2006 hearing would have better served the community, the State, Appellant=s family, and the interest of justice.@
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. Crim. 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. Crim. App. 1980); Taylor v. State, 604 S.W.2d 175 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980); Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. Crim. 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. Crim. App. 1981); Barnett v. State, 615 S.W.2d 220 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). A plea of true alone is sufficient to support the trial court=s determination to revoke. Moses, 590 S.W.2d at 469; Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127 (Tex. Crim. 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. Crim. App. 1979).
Analysis
Appellant has not established that the trial court abused its discretion. Upon revocation of community supervision, the trial court is authorized to dispose of the case Aas if there had been no community supervision@ or to reduce the term of confinement if the trial court determines that result would be in the best interest of both society and the defendant. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, ' 23(a) (Vernon 2006).
The trial court heard testimony that appellant=s delinquent probation fees totaled $1,123; that appellant had never enrolled in, attended, or completed Project Adam as ordered; that he had not reported as ordered; that appellant had failed to provide proof that he had attended AA as ordered; and that appellant had failed to perform community service as ordered. The trial court also heard appellant=s testimony that he had learned to control his anger, that his son had been born prematurely, and that he would like another chance to remain on community supervision.
The punishment assessed was within the range authorized by the legislature for the state jail felony of burglary of a building as defined by Tex. Pen. Code Ann. ' 30.02 (Vernon 2003) of confinement for a term of not more than two years and not less than 180 days and an optional fine not to exceed $10,000. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. ' 12.35 (Vernon 2003). The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it assessed punishment within this range. Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984); Bradfield v. State, 42 S.W.3d 350 (Tex. App.CEastland 2001, pet. ref=d). The issue is overruled. This Court=s Ruling
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
TERRY McCALL
JUSTICE
April 19, 2007
Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
McCall, J., and Strange, J.