Larry Douglas, Jr. v. State ( 2001 )

NUMBERS 13-00-126-CR & 13-00-127-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

____________________________________________________________

LARRY DOUGLAS

, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 105th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________

OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Hinojosa and Rodriguez

Opinion by Chief Justice Valdez

Appellant Larry Douglas pled guilty to theft of an automobile, had his conviction deferred, and was placed on community supervision for four years. Appellant was later indicted for a second theft. He pled guilty without a plea agreement and was convicted. In a second hearing immediately following his conviction, appellant pled true to the State's motion to revoke his community supervision, and the court revoked his community supervision. In each case, the Appellant was given a two year sentence. The court ordered for him to serve each sentence consecutively. Appellant raises four points of error.

In his first point of error, appellant argues that there is insufficient evidence to support the conviction in the second theft case. We disagree. Appellant's signed and sworn written judicial confession admitting his guilt which he filed with the clerk is sufficient evidence to support a guilty plea. Pitts v. State, 916 S.W.2d 507, 509-10 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Jones v. State, 857 S.W.2d 108, 109-10 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1993, no writ). We overrule appellant's first point of error.

In his second and fourth points of error, appellant argues that his probation for the automobile theft case was improperly revoked because the trial court failed to adjudicate him guilty of the offense and because there was no evidence to support an adjudication. On violation of deferred adjudication community supervision, a defendant is entitled to a hearing limited to the determination of whether it proceeds with an adjudication of guilt on the original charge. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 42.12, §5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2001). No appeal may be taken from this determination. Id. The reporter's record and the written judgment signed by the trial judge both reflect that appellant was adjudicated guilty of the original charge. Moreover, a plea of true, standing alone, constitutes sufficient evidence to show appellant violated a condition of probation. See Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). We overrule appellant's second and fourth points of error.

In his third point of error, appellant argues that the trial court erred by requiring him to serve his sentences consecutively instead of concurrently. A trial court may cumulate sentences with a present conviction after probation is revoked on a prior conviction. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 42.08 (a) (Vernon Supp. 2001); McCullar v. State, 676 S.W.2d 587, 588 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). The validity of a cumulation order is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. McCullar, 676 S.W.2d at 588; Burns v. State, 835 S.W.2d 733, 737 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1992, pet. ref'd). We see no abuse of discretion.

We AFFIRM the judgment of the trial court.

________________________

ROGELIO VALDEZ

Chief Justice

Do not publish.

Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.

Opinion delivered and filed

this 22nd day of February, 2001.