Marco Demon Parks v. State ( 2009 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-08-00023-CR
MARCO DEMON PARKS,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 13th District Court
Navarro County, Texas
Trial Court No. 30204
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Marco Demon Parks appeals the trial court’s revocation of his
community supervision. We will affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Parks pleaded guilty to the second degree felony offense of aggravated assault,
and the trial court assessed his punishment at ten years’ imprisonment and a $1,000
fine. The court then suspended the prison sentence and placed Parks on community
supervision for ten years. Subsequently, the State filed a second amended motion to
revoke Parks’s community supervision alleging nine grounds for revocation, including:
(1) The No. 12 Condition of Probation states that the Defendant pay the
sum of $40.00 to the Adult Probation Office of Navarro County, Texas,
each month during the term of probation. The Defendant has violated this
Condition of Probation, to wit: Marco Demon Parks has failed to pay the
probation fee as ordered by the Court.
(2) The No. 14 Condition of Probation states that the Defendant shall pay
the fine in the amount of $1000.00, through the Navarro County Adult
Probation Department. The Defendant has violated this Condition of
Probation, to wit: Marco Demon Parks has failed to pay the fine as
ordered by the court.
(3) The No. 11 Condition of Probation states that the Defendant shall pay
the cost of this cause in the amount of $423.00. The Defendant has
violated this Condition of Probation, to wit: Marco Demon Parks has
failed to pay the Court cost as ordered by the Court.
(6) On or about the 7th day of November, 2007, Marco Demon Parks
violated the number 2 Condition of Probation, said condition providing
that the [sic] avoid injurious or vicious habit, totally avoiding the use of
narcotics, barbiturates, or habit forming drugs and alcoholic beverages, by
his intentional use of alcohol as disclosed by his admission to drinking
alcohol on the 9th day of November, 2007.
At the hearing on the motion to revoke, Parks pleaded “true” to these four allegations.
After hearing evidence on the motion to revoke, the trial court revoked Parks’s
community supervision and assessed his punishment at ten years’ imprisonment.
In his second issue, Parks contends that the trial court committed reversible error
and abused its discretion by revoking Parks’s community supervision because, even
though he entered pleas of “true” to the alleged financial delinquencies, he had paid the
sums required by his supervising probation officer.
Appellate review of an order revoking community supervision is limited to
whether the trial court abused its discretion. Forrest v. State, 805 S.W.2d 462, 464 n.2
(Tex. Crim. App. 1991); Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984); see
Parks v. State Page 2
also Maxey v. State, 49 S.W.3d 582, 584 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001, pet. ref’d). The State is
required to sustain the burden of proving the allegations of the motion to revoke
community supervision. Scamardo v. State, 517 S.W.2d 293, 298 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974);
Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). One ground for revocation, if
proven, is sufficient to revoke a defendant’s community supervision. Moore v. State, 605
S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980); Holmes v. State, 752 S.W.2d 700, 701 (Tex.
App.—Waco 1988, no pet.). A plea of “true” standing alone is sufficient to support a
revocation of community supervision. Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim.
App. 1979). When a plea of “true” is entered, the sufficiency of the evidence may not be
challenged. Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979).
As Parks acknowledges in his brief, he pleaded “true” to four of the allegations
contained in the State’s motion to revoke. These pleas of “true” were sufficient to
support a revocation of Parks’s community supervision. See Moses, 590 S.W.2d at 470;
Cole, 578 S.W.2d at 128. Because Parks pleaded “true” to at least one violation alleged in
the State’s motion to revoke, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking his
community supervision. See Moses, 590 S.W.2d at 470; Cole, 578 S.W.2d at 128. Parks’s
second issue is overruled. We need not address his first issue. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1. We
affirm the trial court’s judgment.
REX D. DAVIS
Justice
Parks v. State Page 3
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Reyna, and
Justice Davis
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed November 4, 2009
Do not publish
[CR25]
Parks v. State Page 4