Opinion
No. 05-18-01268-CR
05-27-2020
JENNIFER FOLEY, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 26th District Court Williamson County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 14-0094-K26
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Schenck, Molberg, and Nowell
Opinion by Justice Nowell
Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, Jennifer Foley pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated, third or more. The trial court sentenced her to ten years' confinement, which it probated for eight years. Subsequently, the State filed a motion to revoke appellant's postconviction community supervision; the State also filed an amended motion. Appellant pleaded true to all allegations in the State's amended motion to revoke. The trial court revoked her community supervision and sentenced her to six years' confinement. In a single issue, appellant argues the trial court abused its discretion by revoking her community supervision. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
Pursuant to its docket equalization authority, the Supreme Court of Texas transferred the appeal from the Court of Appeals for the Third District of Texas to this Court. See TEX. GOV'T CODE § 73.001 (authorizing transfer of cases).
We review an order revoking community supervision for an abuse of discretion. Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). A single violation of a probation condition is sufficient to support a trial court's decision revoking probation. See Garcia v. State, 387 S.W.3d 20, 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012); Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). 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).
In her brief, appellant concedes she pleaded true to the allegations in the State's amended motion and a plea of true is sufficient to support the revocation of probation. She acknowledges in her brief that she violated the conditions of her community supervision by using cocaine and subsequently failing to report to her community supervision officer. However, she argues, the trial court had the authority to permit her to remain on community supervision and, based on the facts of this case, should have done so.
Because appellant pleaded true to all allegations in the State's amended motion to revoke and a plea of true, standing alone, is sufficient to support revocation of community supervision, we cannot conclude the trial court abused its discretion by revoking her community supervision. We overrule appellant's sole issue and affirm the trial court's judgment.
/Erin A. Nowell/
ERIN A. NOWELL
JUSTICE Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)
181268F.U05
JUDGMENT
On Appeal from the 26th District Court, Williamson County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 14-0094-K26.
Opinion delivered by Justice Nowell. Justices Schenck and Molberg participating.
Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered this 27th day of May, 2020.