Nos. 04-04-00471-CR, 04-04-00472-CR
Delivered and Filed: February 2, 2005. DO NOT PUBLISH.
Appeal from the 144th District Court, Bexar County, Texas, Trial Court Nos. 2001-CR-5207 2002-CR-0590W, Honorable Mark Luitjen, Judge Presiding. Affirmed.
Sitting: Alma L. LÓPEZ, Chief Justice, Sandee Bryan MARION, Justice, Phylis SPEEDLIN, Justice.
Opinion by: SANDEE BRYAN MARION, Justice.
Defendant James Aguilar was charged by indictment with two counts of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance and was placed on community supervision for ten years. The State later moved to revoke defendant's community supervision. After a hearing on the State's motion, the trial court revoked defendant's probation and sentenced him to fifteen and twenty years' confinement respectively. On appeal, defendant asserts his due process rights were violated. We affirm.
DISCUSSION
On April 23, 2002, the trial court placed defendant on deferred adjudication for ten years. One of the conditions of his community supervision required defendant to "abstain from the illegal use of controlled substances [and] dangerous drugs . . . and submit to drug testing." On April 7, 2004, the State filed its first motion to enter adjudication of guilt and revoke community supervision after defendant violated the terms of his probation. At the revocation hearing held on Wednesday May 19, 2004, defendant chose to participate in a Substance Abuse Felony Punishment Facility (SAFPF). At the Wednesday hearing, defense counsel stated, "We would have one request for the Court: If he could have until Friday to turn himself in to get his affairs in order." The trial court stated, "Now if you don't show up on Friday, I'll tell you what I am going to do. I'm going to revoke you. And I will send you to prison for significantly longer than ten years." Defendant responded, "I understand that, your Honor. I have turned myself in before. I am a man who will do that." The trial court then ordered defendant to "turn [himself] in Friday morning by 10:30." An order modifying the terms and conditions of the original community supervision was signed on that day by both the trial court and the defendant, reflecting that defendant was to participate in the SAFPF. After defendant failed to report to the Bexar County jail on Friday for transportation to the SAFPF, the State filed a second motion to enter adjudication of guilt and revoke defendant's community supervision. At the June 8, 2004 revocation hearing, defendant pled true to failing to report to the Bexar County jail for transportation to the SAFPF as ordered, and the Court revoked his probation. On appeal, defendant asserts his due process rights were violated because the conditions set forth by the terms of his probation were vague and failed to adequately inform him of his obligations. Specifically, defendant argues the order modifying the conditions of his probation did not include the actual date or specific place where he was to report for transportation to the SAFPF. Appellate review of revocation of probation proceedings is limited to a determination of whether the trial court abused its discretion. See McDonald v. State, 608 S.W.2d 192, 199 (Tex.Crim.App. 1980); Hays v. State, 933 S.W.2d 659, 660 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1996, no pet.). In such a proceeding, the trial court is the sole trier of facts, the credibility of the witnesses, and the weight to be given their testimony. See Hays, 933 S.W.2d at 660. In determining abuse of discretion, we review the evidence adduced at the revocation hearing in the light most favorable to the trial court's findings. Id. A plea of true, standing alone, is sufficient to support the revocation of probation. See id. at 661. Accordingly, defendant's plea of true to the State's complaint is sufficient to support the trial court's decision. Additionally, defendant did not allege any violation of his due process rights below. Thus, defendant failed to preserve this complaint for our review. See Rezac v. State, 782 S.W.2d 869, 870 (Tex.Crim.App. 1990). CONCLUSION
We overrule defendant's issues on appeal and affirm the trial court's judgments.