Gary Wayne Sluus v. State ( 2014 )

AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed June 17, 2014.
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-13-01475-CR
No. 05-13-01476-CR
GARY WAYNE SLUUS, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause Nos. F09-58153-W, F12-14466-W
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Moseley, O’Neill, and FitzGerald
Opinion by Justice O’Neill
Gary Wayne Sluus appeals the revocation of his community supervision in these cases.
In a single issue, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion when it revoked his
community supervision. We affirm the trial court’s judgments.
Appellant waived a jury and pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine in an
amount less than one gram and felony DWI. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN.
§ 481.112(a), (b) (West 2010); TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 49.04(a), 49.09(b)(2) (West Supp.
2013). Pursuant to plea agreements, the trial court assessed punishment at ten years’
imprisonment, probated for five years, and a $2,000 fine. The State later moved to revoke
community supervision, alleging appellant violated three terms of his community supervision,
including that appellant failed to submit a non-dilute random urine sample , failed to report for
his Eye Scan, and operated a motor vehicle that was not equipped with a Deep Lung Breath
Analysis Mechanism. Appellant pleaded true to all of the allegations in a hearing on the
motions. Appellant’s signed pleas of true and stipulations of evidence were admitted into
evidence without objection. The trial court found the allegations true, revoked appellant’s
community supervision, and assessed punishment at ten years’ imprisonment in each case.
In his sole issue on appeal, appellant contends he provided reasonable explanations for
the violations, and because he demonstrated his efforts to comply with the terms alleged as
violations, the trial court should have modified or continued his community supervision. The
State responds the trial court did not abuse its discretion by revoking appellant’s community
supervision.
Appellant pleaded true to the allegations contained in the motions to revoke community
supervision, and offered explanations why he failed to comply with the terms of his community
supervision. A plea of true, standing alone, is sufficient to support revocation of community
supervision. See Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979).
We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking appellant’s
community supervision. We overrule appellant’s sole issue.
-2-
We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
/Michael J. O'Neill/
MICHAEL J. O'NEILL
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47
131475F.U05
-3-
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
GARY WAYNE SLUUS, Appellant Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District
Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No.
No. 05-13-01475-CR V. F09-58153-W).
Opinion delivered by Justice O’Neill,
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Moseley and FitzGerald
participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered June 17, 2014.
/Michael J. O'Neill/
MICHAEL J. O'NEILL
JUSTICE
-4-
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
GARY WAYNE SLUUS, Appellant Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District
Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No.
No. 05-13-01476-CR V. F12-14466-W).
Opinion delivered by Justice O’Neill,
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee Justices Moseley and FitzGerald
participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
Judgment entered June 17, 2014.
/Michael J. O'Neill/
MICHAEL J. O'NEILL
JUSTICE
-5-