-
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-99-00367-CR
Leroy Flores, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY, 187TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 89-CR-3471, HONORABLE RAYMOND ANGELINI, JUDGE PRESIDING
Leroy Flores appeals from an order revoking his probation. He raises one point of error contending that the district court erroneously revoked his probation. We will affirm the district court's order.
Flores was placed on probation for burglary for ten years on June 4, 1996. On April 12, 1999, the State filed its first amended motion to revoke probation asserting that Flores violated several conditions of his probation. Among other violations, the State alleged that on January 12, 1999, Flores consumed alcoholic beverages in violation of condition 2 of his probation. At the revocation hearing, the State and Flores presented evidence relating to this alleged violation. Additionally, the State alleged that Flores failed to report to the Bexar County Community Supervision and Corrections Department for the weeks of January 25, 1999, and February 1, 8, 15, 22 of 1999 in violation of condition 23 of his probation. At the revocation hearing, Flores pleaded true to violating condition 23 by failing to report to the Department during those weeks. The district court found that Flores violated conditions 2 and 23 of his probation, revoked his probation, and sentenced him to six years in prison.
By a single point of error, Flores contends that the district court erred in allowing testimony at the revocation hearing about his alcohol consumption on January 12.
Appellate review of revocation of probation proceedings is limited to determining whether the district court abused its discretion. See McDonald v. State, 608 S.W.2d 192, 199 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). A defendant's plea of true to one alleged violation of probation alone is sufficient to support revocation of probation. See Hays v. State, 933 S.W.2d 659, 661 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1996, no pet.).
Flores's plea of true to the allegation that he failed to report to the Department in January and February 1999 in accordance with condition 23 of his probation alone is sufficient to support the revocation. See Kelly v. State, 627 S.W.2d 826, 827 (Tex. App.--Tyler 1982, no pet.) (citing Clapper v. State, 562 S.W.2d 250 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Roberson v. State, 549 S.W.2d 749 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977)) (defendant's plea of true is alone sufficient to support revocation).
Without addressing the merits of Flores's point of error, we hold that he has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in revoking his probation. See Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (since one sufficient ground supports revocation, defendant's failure to challenge that sufficient ground means nothing is presented for review on claim of abuse of discretion in revocation based on another ground). Flores's point of error is overruled and the district court's order is affirmed.
Jan Patterson, Justice
Before Justices Jones, Kidd and Patterson
Affirmed
Filed: November 18, 1999
Do Not Publish
ONG>
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-99-00367-CR
Leroy Flores, Appellant
v.
The State of Texas, Appellee
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY, 187TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 89-CR-3471, HONORABLE RAYMOND ANGELINI, JUDGE PRESIDING
Leroy Flores appeals from an order revoking his probation. He raises one point of error contending that the district court erroneously revoked his probation. We will affirm the district court's order.
Flores was placed on probation for burglary for ten years on June 4, 1996. On April 12, 1999, the State filed its first amended motion to revoke probation asserting that Flores violated several conditions of his probation. Among other violations, the State alleged that on January 12, 1999, Flores consumed alcoholic beverages in violation of condition 2 of his probation. At the revocation hearing, the State and Flores presented evidence relating to this alleged violation. Additionally, the State alleged that Flores failed to report to the Bexar County Community Supervision and Corrections Department for the weeks of January 25, 1999, and February 1, 8, 15, 22 of 1999 in violation of condition 23 of his probation. At the revocation hearing, Flores pleaded true to violating condition 23 by failing to report to the Department during those weeks. The district court found that Flores violated conditions 2 and 23 of his probation, revoked his probation, and sentenced him to six years in prison.
By a single point of error, Flores contends that the district court erred in allowing testimony at the revocation hearing about his alcohol consumption on January 12.
Appellate review of revocation of probation proceedings is limited to determining whether the district court abused its discretion. See McDonald v. State, 608 S.W.2d 192, 199 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). A defendant's plea of true to one alleged violation of probation alone is sufficient to support revocation of probation. See Hays v. State, 933 S.W.2d 659, 661 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1996, no pet.).
Flores's plea of true to the allegation that he failed to report to the Department in January and February 1999 in accordance with condition 23 of his probation alone is sufficient to support the revocation. See Kelly v. State, 627 S.W.2d 826, 827 (Tex. App.--Tyler 1982, no pet.) (citing Clapper v. State, 562 S.W.2d 250 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Roberson v. State, 549 S.W.2d 749 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977)) (defendant's plea of true is alone sufficient to support revocation).
Without addressing the merits of Flores's point of error, we hold that he has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in revoking his probation. See Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980) (since one sufficient ground supports revocation, defendant's failure to challenge that sufficient ground means nothing is presented for review on claim of abuse of discretion in revocation based on another ground). Flores's point of error is overruled and the district court's order is affirmed.
Jan Patterson, Justice
Before Justices Jones, Kidd and Patterson
Document Info
Docket Number： 03-99-00367-CR
Filed Date： 11/18/1999
Precedential Status： Precedential
Modified Date： 9/5/2015