Joseph Latigue v. State ( 2011 )

Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed May 26, 2011.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-10-00680-CR

Joseph Latigue, Appellant

V.

The State of Texas, Appellee

On Appeal from the 252nd District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 09-07877

MEMORANDUM  OPINION

Appellant entered a plea of guilty to aggravated robbery.  Pursuant to a plea bargain with the State, the trial court deferred adjudication and placed appellant on probation for ten years.  The State subsequently filed a motion to adjudicate and to revoke appellant’s probation.  The trial court adjudicated appellant’s guilt and sentenced him to confinement for 99 years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  In two issues appellant contends (1) his pleas of true were not knowing and voluntary and (2) the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction.  We affirm.

Background

On November 19, 2009, appellant was indicted for the offense of aggravated robbery.  On April 26, 2010, appellant entered a plea of guilty, and, pursuant to a plea bargain with the State, was placed on ten years’ deferred adjudication probation.  On June 30, 2010, the State filed a motion to adjudicate appellant’s probation on the grounds that he violated several terms and conditions of his probation.  Specifically, the State alleged appellant committed the offenses of aggravated robbery (count 1), deadly conduct (count 2), assault (count 3), and disorderly conduct (count 4).  The State further alleged that appellant violated his curfew (count 5), failed to provide verification of attendance at a drug program (count 6), and failed to pay court-assessed fees (count 7).  At the beginning of the hearing on the motion to adjudicate, the State abandoned counts 2, 6, and 7 and proceeded on counts 1, 3, 4, and 5. Appellant entered pleas of not true to counts 1, 3, and 4 and pleas of true to counts 5, 6, and 7.  At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found counts 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 to be true, adjudicated appellant’s guilt, and assessed punishment. 

Standard of Review

We review a trial court’s order adjudicating guilt for abuse of discretion.  Akbar v. State, 190 S.W.3d 119, 122 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (citing Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984)).  The hearing is not a criminal trial; it is an administrative hearing.  Akbar, 190 S.W.3d at 122 (citing Bradley v. State, 608 S.W.2d 652, 656 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980)).  In conducting our review, we consider all the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s finding to determine whether the trial court could have reasonably found that appellant violated the terms and conditions of his probation by a preponderance of the evidence.  Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763–64 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).  The State satisfies its burden of proof when the greater weight of credible evidence before the court creates a reasonable belief that it is more probable that the defendant has violated a condition of probation.  Id.; Joseph v. State, 3 S.W.3d 627, 640 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.).  Proof of any one of the alleged violations is sufficient to support a revocation of probation. Moore v. State, 11 S.W.3d 495, 498 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.). 

Voluntariness of Pleas of True

In his first issue, appellant contends his pleas of true to counts 5, 6, and 7 were not knowing and voluntary because the trial court did not inform him of the direct consequences of his pleas.  Appellant has no right to admonishments prior to pleading true in a probation revocation proceeding. Gutierrez v. State, 108 S.W.3d 304, 309–10 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (statute requiring certain admonishments be given prior to acceptance of guilty pleas inapplicable in probation revocation proceedings).  Appellant’s argument that his plea was involuntary because he was not properly admonished is without merit.  We overrule appellant’s first issue.

Sufficiency of Evidence

In his second issue, appellant contends the trial court erred in adjudicating his guilt because there was no evidence of count 6, nor was there evidence that he was the person placed on deferred adjudication probation.  Appellant admitted he violated curfew and failed to pay court costs and fees.  Those admissions alone are sufficient to support an adjudication of guilt.  See Cordona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493–94 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984).  Further, appellant has not challenged the trial court’s findings of true to counts 1, 3, 4, and 5.

With regard to proof that appellant was the person placed on deferred adjudication probation, appellant testified at the hearing on the motion to adjudicate, and admitted that he was the defendant charged in this case.  Because appellant admitted he was the person charged and admitted to violations of his deferred adjudication probation, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in adjudicating appellant’s guilt.  We overrule appellant’s second issue.

            The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

                                                                                    PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Frost, Jamison, and McCally.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).