IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-11-00113-CR
JUAN SAUCEDA, JR.,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 40th District Court
Ellis County, Texas
Trial Court No. 32886CR
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, Juan Sauceda, Jr. 1 pleaded guilty to the
offense of aggravated assault and was placed on deferred adjudication community
supervision for ten years. The State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt alleging two
violations of the conditions of community supervision. The trial court held a hearing on
the motion to adjudicate, and Sauceda pleaded true to the allegations. After hearing
punishment evidence, the trial court adjudicated Sauceda’s guilt and assessed his
1 Juan Sauceda, Jr. is also known as John Sauceda, Jr.
punishment at fifteen years confinement. We reform the judgment and modify as
reformed.
In the second issue on appeal, Sauceda argues that the trial court “abused its
discretion by drawing unreasonable inferences from the evidence which produced an
irrational decision to revoke [his] community supervision rather than continue him on
the supervision.” The State alleged that Sauceda violated his community supervision
by committing the offense of evading arrest and by violating his curfew. Sauceda
pleaded true to the allegations. Sauceda presented evidence that he had complied with
all of the other conditions of his community supervision including paying all of his fees
and attending required meetings. A community supervision and correction officer for
Ellis County testified that the Department recommended that Sauceda be sentenced to
an intermediate sanction facility for 90 days. Sauceda argues that the trial court’s
sentence of fifteen years confinement is a dramatic departure from the
recommendation.
The trial court's order revoking community supervision is reviewed under an
abuse of discretion standard. Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. Crim. App.
2006); Antwine v. State, 268 S.W.3d 634, 636 (Tex. App.─ Eastland 2008, pet. ref'd). On
violation of a condition of community supervision imposed under an order of deferred
adjudication, the defendant is entitled to a hearing limited to the determination by the
court of whether it proceeds with an adjudication of guilt on the original charge. TEX.
CODE CRIM. PRO. ANN. art. 42.12, Section 5(b) (West Supp. 2011). This determination is
reviewable in the same manner used to determine whether sufficient evidence
Sauceda v. State Page 2
supported the trial court's decision to revoke community supervision. Antwine v. State,
268 S.W.3d at 636. In an adjudication hearing, the State must prove by a preponderance
of the evidence that a defendant violated the terms of his community supervision.
Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d at 763-4; Antwine v. State, 268 S.W.3d at 636. Proof of any one
of the alleged violations of the conditions of community supervision is sufficient to
support a revocation order. Antwine v. State, 268 S.W.3d at 636.
Sauceda pleaded true to the allegations alleged in the motion to revoke. The plea
of true is sufficient to support a revocation. Atchison v. State, 124 S.W.3d 755, 758 n. 4
(Tex. App.─Austin 2003, pet. ref'd) (citing Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1979)). The record shows that Sauceda has a significant criminal history which
enhanced his range of punishment. The trial court imposed sentence within the
applicable punishment range and the sentence was not “unreasonable” or “irrational”.
See Nunez v. State, 565 S.W.2d 536 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The trial court did not abuse
its discretion in revoking Sauceda’s community supervision. We overrule the second
issue.
In the first issue, Sauceda argues that the judgment adjudicating his guilt
includes a $2500 fine that was not orally pronounced in violation of TEX. CODE CRIM.
PRO. ANN. art. 42.03 § 1(a) (West Supp. 2011). The record reflects, and the State
concedes, that the trial court did not orally pronounce the $2500 fine in open court.
When there is a conflict between the oral pronouncement of sentence and the sentence
in the written judgment, the oral pronouncement controls. Taylor v. State, 131 S.W.3d
Sauceda v. State Page 3
497, 502 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004). We sustain Sauceda’s first issue. We delete the
assessment of the fine from the trial court’s judgment adjudicating Sauceda’s guilt. Id.
We reform the trial court’s judgment to reflect that no fine was assessed. We
affirm the trial court’s judgment as reformed.
AL SCOGGINS
Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Davis, and
Justice Scoggins
Affirm as reformed
Opinion delivered and filed October 19, 2011
Do not publish
[CR25]
Sauceda v. State Page 4