Opinion
No. 04-04-00289-CR
Delivered and Filed: June 8, 2005. DO NOT PUBLISH.
Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 7, Bexar County, Texas, Trial Court No. 851960, Honorable Monica E. Guerrero, Judge Presiding. Affirmed.
Sitting: Alma L. LÓPEZ, Chief Justice, Karen ANGELINI, Justice, Phylis J. SPEEDLIN, Justice.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
The sole issue raised by Brian S. Dale in this appeal of the trial court's judgment revoking his community supervision is that the evidence is insufficient to support the revocation. The burden of proof at a probation revocation hearing is by a preponderance of the evidence, and, on appeal, the reviewing court considers whether the trial court abused its discretion in making its decision to revoke. Garrett v. State, 619 S.W.2d 172, 174 (Tex.Crim.App. 1981). "When a plea of true is made, the sufficiency of the evidence may not be challenged" on appeal. Hays v. State, 933 S.W.2d 659, 661 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1996, no pet.). "A plea of true, standing alone, is sufficient to support the revocation of probation." Id. In this case, Dale pled true to violating a condition of his probation. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Dale's probation, and the trial court's judgment is affirmed.
After pleading true, Dale asserted that he was unaware that he was required to report, implying that the conditions of his probation were vague or unclear. Allegations that the conditions of probation are vague concern an appellant's conviction and punishment, and, thus, should be raised by timely appeal when the appellant is placed on probation rather than after the revocation of the appellant's probation. See Margoitta v. State, 10 S.W.3d 416, 418 (Tex.App.-Waco 2000, no pet.); Anthony v. State, 962 S.W.2d 242, 246 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1998, no pet.).