|
|
|
|
Opinion filed October 2, 2008
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
____________
No. 11-07-00197-CR
__________
WILLIAM EUGENE SELF, JR., Appellant
V.
STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 163rd District Court
Orange County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. B030767-R
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
William Eugene Self, Jr., pleaded guilty to indecency with a child and was sentenced to ten years deferred adjudication. The State subsequently filed a motion to adjudicate alleging that he had violated a number of conditions of his community supervision. Self pleaded not true to the State=s allegation that he sexually assaulted a child younger than fourteen years of age but true to violating four other conditions. The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing, found that the State=s allegations were true, revoked Self=s community supervision, and sentenced him to twenty years confinement. Self challenges his revocation with a single issue, contending that the evidence was insufficient.
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. Crim. App. 1993). The trial court is the sole trier of the facts, the credibility of the witnesses, and the weight to be given to the evidence. Naquin v. State, 607 S.W.2d 583, 586 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). 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. Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). Proof of one violation is sufficient to support an order revoking community supervision. See O=Neal v. State, 623 S.W.2d 660, 661 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). Moreover, it is well settled that a plea of true alone is sufficient to find a violation. See Rincon v. State, 615 S.W.2d 746, 747 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981).
Self pleaded true to the allegation that he violated four conditions of his community supervision by possessing and consuming alcohol and by initiating, maintaining, or establishing contact with a minor. The trial court admonished Self that a plea of true was sufficient basis to find the allegations were true, and Self confirmed that he understood. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court announced that it found Self violated four conditions of his community supervision based upon Self=s plea of true and that it found the remaining allegation true based upon the evidence. Because proof of one violation is sufficient basis to revoke community supervision and because a pleading of true is sufficient basis to find that a violation has occurred, it necessarily follows that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by revoking Self=s community supervision when he admitted violating four conditions. It is, therefore, unnecessary to examine the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court=s remaining finding. Self=s issue is overruled.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
RICK STRANGE
October 2, 2008 JUSTICE
Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
McCall, J., and Strange, J.