COURT OF APPEALS
SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH
NO. 02-10-00500-CR
ALISHA DAVONA ALEXANDER APPELLANT
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE
----------
FROM THE 371ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY
----------
MEMORANDUM OPINION1
----------
Pursuant to a plea bargain, Appellant Alisha Davona Alexander pled guilty
to felony forgery, and the trial court placed her on deferred adjudication
community supervision for four years and ordered that she pay a fine of $300;
the fine was not suspended. Almost three and a half years later, the State filed
its second motion to proceed to adjudication, alleging that she violated the terms
and conditions of her deferred adjudication community supervision. After a
1
See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
hearing, the trial court granted the State’s motion, revoked Appellant’s deferred
adjudication community supervision, adjudicated Appellant’s guilt, and sentenced
her to fifteen months’ confinement. In two issues, Appellant contends that the
trial court abused its discretion by finding the State’s allegations true and by
sentencing her to fifteen months’ confinement. Because we hold that the trial
court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Appellant pled true to the following allegations in the State’s second motion
to adjudicate:
1. INTENSIVE DAY TREATMENT AFTERCARE: The
Defendant was ordered to attend and successfully complete
the Intensive Day Treatment program and Aftercare.
a) In violation of this condition, the Defendant failed to
attend Intensive Day Treatment Aftercare, on or
about the following dates:
July 21, 2010
August 4, 2010
August 11, 2010
August 18, 2010
b) In violation of this condition, the Defendant was
unsuccessfully discharged from the Intensive Day
Treatment Aftercare, on or about August 18, 2010.
2. FAILURE TO REPORT: The Defendant was ordered to report
to the Community Supervision and Corrections Department of
Tarrant County, Texas, immediately after being placed on
probation and no less than monthly thereafter, or as
scheduled by the Court or Supervision Officer, and obey all
rules and regulations of the Department. In violation of this
condition, the Defendant failed to report as scheduled by [the]
Defendant’s Supervision Officer during the following periods:
. . . August of 2010[.]
2
After a “true but” hearing, the trial court found the specified allegations
true, convicted Appellant, and sentenced her.
In her first issue, Appellant contends that the trial court abused its
discretion by finding true the allegations to which she pled true. She argues that
her noncompliance was not her fault. We review an order revoking community
supervision under an abuse of discretion standard. 2 In a revocation proceeding,
the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant
violated the terms and conditions of community supervision.3 The trial court is
the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their
testimony, and we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial
court=s ruling.4 If the State fails to meet its burden of proof, the trial court abuses
its discretion in revoking the community supervision. 5 But a plea of true, standing
alone, is sufficient to support the revocation of community supervision. 6 Because
Appellant pled true to at least one allegation, we hold that the trial court did not
abuse its discretion by revoking her community supervision and adjudicating her
guilt. We overrule Appellant’s first issue.
2
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).
3
Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993).
4
Cardona, 665 S.W.2d at 493; Garrett v. State, 619 S.W.2d 172, 174 (Tex.
Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1981).
5
Cardona, 665 S.W.2d at 493B94.
6
Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979).
3
In her second issue, Appellant contends that the trial court abused its
discretion by sentencing her to fifteen months’ confinement. She essentially
claims that the sentence is unfair because the State sought less time in its plea
bargain offers regarding adjudication, offers that she rejected, and because her
violations were not her fault. The sentence falls well within the range of
punishment for the offense. 7 Appellant does not argue that the sentence is cruel,
excessive, or disproportionate, nor did she present evidence supporting such
claims at trial. Given all the evidence, we cannot conclude that the trial court
abused its discretion by sentencing her to serve fifteen months’ confinement. We
overrule Appellant’s second issue.
Having overruled Appellant’s two issues, we affirm the trial court’s
judgment.
LEE ANN DAUPHINOT
JUSTICE
PANEL: DAUPHINOT, MEIER, and GABRIEL, JJ.
DO NOT PUBLISH
Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
DELIVERED: August 11, 2011
7
See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 12.35(a), (b) (West 2011) (providing that an
individual convicted of a state jail felony shall be punished by confinement in
state jail for at least 180 days but not more than two years and that he may also
be punished by a fine of up to $10,000), id. § 32.21(d) (providing that passing a
forged check is a state jail felony).
4