NUMBER 13-10-627-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
RICHARD MARTINEZ, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 94th District Court
of Nueces County, Texas.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Garza, Vela, and Perkes
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Vela
Appellant, Richard Martinez, was indicted for attempted sexual assault. See TEX.
PENAL CODE ANN. § 15.01(a) (Vernon 2003), § 22.011(a) (Vernon Supp. 2010). After
pleading guilty to the offense, the court sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment but
suspended the sentence and placed him on community supervision for six years.
Afterwards, on the State’s fifth motion to revoke, Martinez pleaded “True” to the alleged
violations of the terms and conditions of his community supervision, and the court
revoked community supervision and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment. By one
issue, Martinez argues the trial court abused its discretion by revoking community
supervision and imposing a six-year prison sentence. We affirm.
I. REVOCATION HEARING
During the revocation hearing, Martinez pleaded “True” to violating the terms and
conditions of community supervision. Specifically, he: (1) failed to serve time in an
intermediate sanction facility and upon release, failed “to report to probation” and “failed
to obey the order from staff leading to a disciplinary reporting hearing”; (2) “failed to obey
an order from staff and leading to a disciplinary report and hearing”; (3) “violated a posted
order from the [intermediate sanction] facility leading to a disciplinary report and hearing”;
and (4) “failed to successfully complete the intermediate sanction facility as ordered and .
. . [was] behaviorally discharged.”
Based upon the pleas of true, the court found the allegations to be true. After
hearing testimony from Martinez, as well as argument from both sides, the court revoked
community supervision.
II. DISCUSSION
In his sole issue, Martinez argues the court abused its discretion by revoking
community supervision and imposing a six-year prison sentence. The State bears the
burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed a
violation of the community-supervision conditions. Antwine v. State, 268 S.W.3d 634,
636 (Tex. App.–Eastland 2008, pet. ref’d) (citing Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 873
2
(Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Kulhanek v. State, 587 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979)).
We review the trial court’s order revoking community supervision under an
abuse-of-discretion standard. Id. (citing Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex.
Crim. App. 2006); Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984)). In a
community supervision revocation hearing, an abuse of discretion occurs when the trial
judge’s decision was so clearly wrong that it falls outside the zone within which
reasonable persons might disagree. Wilkins v. State, 279 S.W.3d 701, 703-04 (Tex.
App.–Amarillo 2007, no pet.); Brumbalow v. State, 933 S.W.2d 298, 300 (Tex.
App.–Waco 1996, pet. ref’d).
The trial court is the sole judge of the witnesses’ credibility and the weight given to
their testimony, and we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s
ruling. Antwine, 268 S.W.3d at 636 (citing Cardona, 665 S.W.2d at 493; Garrett v. State,
619 S.W.2d 172, 174 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981)). If the State does not meet its burden of
proof, the trial court abuses its discretion in revoking the community supervision. Id.
(citing Cardona, 665 S.W.2d 493-94). Proof by a preponderance of the evidence of any
one of the alleged violations of the community-supervision conditions is sufficient to
support a revocation order. Id. (citing Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1980); Leach v. State, 170 S.W.3d 669, 672 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth 2005, pet.
ref’d)). A plea of true, standing alone, supports the revocation of community supervision.
See Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979) (holding a plea of true to
one allegation is sufficient to support revocation of probation).
3
Martinez pleaded “True” to each of the violations alleged in the State’s motion to
revoke and gave additional testimony about these violations. These pleas of true,
standing alone, support the revocation of community supervision. See id. Thus, the
trial judge’s decision was not so clearly wrong that it fell outside the zone within which
reasonable persons might disagree. We hold, therefore, that the trial court did not abuse
its discretion by revoking community supervision and imposing a six-year prison
sentence. The sole issue for review is overruled.
III. CONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
ROSE VELA
Justice
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the
21st day of April, 2011.
4