Jose Angel Perez v. State ( 2015 )

NUMBER 13-14-00300-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
JOSE ANGEL PEREZ,
Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
On appeal from the 24th District Court
of Jackson County, Texas.
CONCURRING MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Benavides and Perkes
Concurring Memorandum Opinion by Justice Perkes
I agree with the majority's affirmance because appellant only challenges on appeal
two of the six separate grounds which support the trial court’s revocation of his community
supervision. However, since the majority contemplates matters that are unnecessary for
the determination of the appeal, I concur in the result only.
Texas law is clear that one sufficient ground for revocation will support the trial
court’s order revoking community supervision. See Smith v. State, 286 S.W.3d 333, 342
(Tex. Crim. App. 2009). In fact, a plea of true, standing alone, supports the revocation
of community supervision. See Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex. Crim. App.
1979) (holding plea of true to one allegation is sufficient to support revocation of
probation). Therefore, to obtain reversal of a revocation order, the appellant must
successfully challenge each and every ground on which the trial court relied to support
revocation. Sterling v. State, 791 S.W.2d 274, 277 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1990,
pet. ref'd) (citing Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980); Grim v.
State, 656 S.W.2d 542, 543 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1983, no pet.)).
The State alleged that appellant committed six violations of his terms of community
supervision: (1) on November 21, 2013, appellant intentionally or knowingly possessed
cocaine; (2) on November 21, 2013, appellant tested positive for cocaine; (3) appellant
failed to report to the Dallas County Community Supervision and Corrections Department
for the month of October 2013; (4) appellant failed to pay community supervision fees
and owes a past-due balance of $1,755; (5) appellant failed to make payments on his
$3,000 fine balance and owes $1,961 in past-due payments; and (6) appellant failed to
perform a minimum number of community service hours.
During the revocation proceeding, appellant pleaded “true” to the State’s fourth
and fifth grounds. The trial court thereafter found the remaining four grounds to be “true”
and revoked appellant’s community supervision.
On appeal, appellant only challenges the first and second grounds (cocaine), but
2
wholly fails to challenge the trial court’s findings with respect to the third through sixth
grounds on which it relied to support revocation. Because a single violation will support
the order revoking community supervision, appellant’s failure to challenge on appeal any
of the findings of the third through sixth allegations, precludes the necessity of
determining whether error occurred with respect to the first and second grounds. See
Garcia v. State, 387 S.W.3d 20, 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012).
For that reason, I would affirm the order of the trial court.
GREGORY T. PERKES
Justice
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the
9th day of July, 2015.
3