Billy Benavidez v. State ( 2016 )

Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-15-00150-CR
Billy BENAVIDEZ,
Appellant
v.
The STATE of Texas,
Appellee
From the 229th Judicial District Court, Duval County, Texas
Trial Court No. 09-CRD-122
Honorable J. Manuel Banales, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: December 7, 2016
AFFIRMED
Billy Benavidez appeals the trial court’s judgment revoking his deferred adjudication
community supervision, adjudicating him guilty of Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon,
and sentencing him to ten years’ imprisonment. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
ANALYSIS
On May 26, 2010, Benavidez pled guilty to Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon
under Count II of a three-count indictment. Count III of the indictment alleged that Benavidez had
a prior felony conviction. The State dismissed Count I, which alleged Driving While Intoxicated
04-15-00150-CR
with a Child Younger than 15 Years. The trial court placed Benavidez on deferred adjudication
community supervision for a period of seven years.
On October 29, 2013, the State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt alleging that Benavidez
had violated multiple conditions of his community supervision, including, but not limited to:
commission of a new offense, Driving While Intoxicated-3rd or More, on October 13, 2013 in
Nueces County; failure to avoid alcohol; failure to remain in Duval County; failure to abide by his
curfew; failure to pay court costs; failure to pay the $1,500 fine; failure to pay restitution and other
fees; failure to begin and complete out-patient counseling; and failure to begin and complete 140
hours of community service. At the hearing on the State’s motion, Benavidez pled true to all of
the alleged violations, both verbally and in a written “Plea of True to State’s Motion to Adjudicate
Guilt.” The trial court confirmed Benavidez’s knowledge and understanding of the alleged
violations, and the consequences of a plea of true, before accepting his plea and finding that he
committed each of the alleged violations. The court revoked Benavidez’s deferred adjudication
community supervision, and proceeded to adjudicate him guilty of the underlying offense of
Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon. The trial court then proceeded to the punishment
phase, at which no new evidence was submitted, and sentenced Benavidez to ten years’
imprisonment.
On appeal, Benavidez asserts the State failed to submit evidence to corroborate his plea of
true to commission of the October 13, 2013 DWI-3rd or More offense alleged in the State’s motion
to adjudicate/revoke. He contends that his “judicial confession” to commission of that offense was
insufficient unless independent corroborating evidence was presented to establish the corpus
delicti. See Miller v. State, 457 S.W.3d 919, 924 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (quoting Hacker v. State,
389 S.W.3d 860, 866 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013)) (“To satisfy the corpus delicti rule, there must be
-2-
04-15-00150-CR
‘evidence independent of a defendant’s extrajudicial confession show[ing] that the ‘essential
nature’ of the charged crime was committed by someone.’”). Benavidez asserts that because the
State’s motion only alleged he was “arrested and charged” with the new offense, there was no
evidence the new DWI-3rd or More offense was actually committed. 1 Even if Benavidez’s
premise were true with respect to the violation based on commission of the new offense, the trial
court found that Benavidez committed multiple other violations of the conditions of his community
supervision such as failure to pay his fine, court costs, restitution and other fees, and failure to
perform counseling and community service hours. One violation of a condition of community
supervision is sufficient to support a revocation. Watts v. State, 645 S.W.2d 461, 463 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1983); Lewis v. State, 195 S.W.3d 205, 209 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006, no pet.).
Benavidez’s argument on appeal is limited to the violation based on the new DWI-3rd or More
offense; he does not challenge any of the other violations found by the trial court. We therefore
overrule Benavidez’s sole issue and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
DO NOT PUBLISH
1
Benavidez also argues he was harmed by the trial court’s consideration of the new DWI-3rd or More offense because
it was the “primary reason” for imposition of the ten-year sentence instead of the four-year sentence recommended by
the State. The transcript of the hearing shows the trial court was indeed concerned with Benavidez’s history of driving
while intoxicated. However, the court focused on Benavidez’s three prior convictions for DWI, to which Benavidez
testified, not the pending DWI-3rd or More offense, before rejecting Benavidez’s request to continue on community
supervision and imposing the ten-year sentence.
-3-