. . . In other words, the judge may impose the sentence originally assessed.") (internal quotations omitted); see also Borchick, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 5842, at **3-4 (citing Mendoza v. State, No. 04-06-00135-CR, 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 7948, at *3 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Sept. 6, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); May v. State, No. 07-03-00420-CR, 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 5772, at **2-3 (Tex. App.—Amarillo July 25, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) ("So, because appellant at bar was originally sentenced to a ten-year prison term, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in assessing a like term upon revoking his probation. In short, we refuse to hold that the trial court abused its discretion in doing that allowed by statute.").
A court does not abuse its discretion by imposing the sentence originally assessed. Mendoza v. State, No. 04-06-00135-CR, 2006 WL 2546485, at *1 (Tex.App.-San Antonio Sept. 6, 2006, no pet.) (not designated for publication); May v. State, No. 07-03-00420-CR, 2005 WL 1743359, at *1 (Tex.App.-Amarillo July 25, 2005, no pet.) (not designated for publication). Thus, we overrule Borchick's complaint that the court abused its discretion by imposing the sentence originally assessed.