|
|
|
|
Opinion filed May 1, 2008
In The
Eleventh Court of Appeals
____________
No. 11-06-00255-CR
__________
JAMES WILLIAM GILLIAM, Appellant
v.
STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 142nd District Court
Midland County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CR27743
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
The trial court revoked appellant=s community supervision and assessed his punishment at four years confinement. We affirm.
In October 2002, the trial court found appellant guilty, pursuant to a plea bargain, of possession of cocaine in the amount of one gram or more, but less than four grams. His punishment was assessed at confinement for a period of six years. The trial court suspended the imposition of the sentence and placed appellant on community supervision for a period of six years.
Later, the State filed its third amended motion to revoke appellant=s community supervision. In five allegations, the State alleged that appellant had driven while intoxicated during the term of his community supervision; had consumed alcohol during the term of his community supervision; and had, on various occasions as set forth in the motion, failed to report, failed to pay fees, and failed to perform community service. When it came time for the trial court to hear the State=s motion, appellant pleaded true to the allegations regarding his failure to report, failure to pay fees, and failure to perform community service; he pleaded not true to the allegations regarding driving while intoxicated and consuming alcohol. In August 2006, the trial court revoked appellant=s community supervision. The trial court then sentenced appellant to confinement for four years rather than the original six years.
Appellant brings three issues on appeal. We read appellant=s first issue to be one in which he complains of the failure of the State to introduce into evidence a videotape made at the time of his arrest for driving while intoxicated. In his second issue, appellant asserts that there was insufficient evidence presented by the State to prove the driving while intoxicated allegation. In his third issue, appellant maintains that he received ineffective assistance of counsel on matters relating to the allegation of driving while intoxicated. There are no issues on appeal that attack the trial court=s findings on the allegations that appellant failed to report, failed to pay fees, and failed to perform community service.
We need not address appellant=s issues pertaining to driving while intoxicated because 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). There were three allegations that were not contested, either at trial or on appeal. Appellant pleaded true to those allegations that he had failed, as alleged, to pay fees, to report, and to perform community service. A plea of true alone is sufficient to support the trial court=s determination to revoke. Moses, 590 S.W.2d at 470; Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). The standard of proof in a revocation proceeding is by a preponderance of the evidence. Jackson v. State, 645 S.W.2d 303, 305 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983). We review an order revoking community supervision under an abuse of discretion standard. Id. Here, for the reasons stated above, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it revoked appellant=s community supervision. All of appellant=s issues on appeal are overruled.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
JIM R. WRIGHT
CHIEF JUSTICE
May 1, 2008
Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
McCall, J., and Strange, J.