Opinion
No. 05-11-00690-CR
01-31-2012
JERMERIO MONTRELL MAYFIELD, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
AFFIRM; Opinion issued January 31, 2012
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F02-55333-K
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Bridges, O'Neill, and Fillmore
Opinion By Justice Bridges
Jermerio Montrell Mayfield appeals from the adjudication of his guilt for aggravated assault. In a single issue, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his community supervision and adjudicating his guilt. We affirm. The background of the case and the evidence admitted at trial are well known to the parties, and we therefore limit recitation of the facts. We issue this memorandum opinion pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.4 because the law to be applied in the case is well settled.
Appellant waived a jury and pleaded guilty to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a hand. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.02(a) (West 2011). Pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial court deferred adjudicating guilt, placed appellant on six years' community supervision, and assessed a $2,000 fine. The State later moved to adjudicate guilt, alleging appellant violated eight conditions of his community supervision, including that appellant committed a new offense of DWI; tested positive for marijuana; failed to report; failed to obtain his GED; and failed to pay court costs, supervision fees, urinalysis costs, and crime stoppers fees. Appellant pleaded true to all of the allegations in a hearing on the motion. Appellant's signed plea of true and stipulation of evidence was admitted into evidence without objection. The trial court found five of the allegations true, including that appellant committed a new DWI offense, failed to obtain his GED, and failed to pay court costs and supervision and crime stoppers fees. The trial court granted the State's motion, adjudicated appellant guilty, and assessed punishment at eight years' imprisonment.
In his sole issue on appeal, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion when it found true the allegation that appellant failed to pay community supervision fees because appellant testified he paid the fees in full. The State responds the trial court did not abuse its discretion by revoking appellant's community supervision and adjudicating his guilt.
Appellant pleaded true to the allegations contained in the motion to adjudicate. While appellant testified he "paid all my probation fees off in full," he admitted he failed to report and used marijuana while on community supervision. 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).
Appellant does not challenge the trial court's findings regarding the other alleged violations. A finding of true as to one condition is sufficient to support the revocation. Id. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking appellant's community supervision and adjudicating his guilt. We resolve appellant's sole issue against him.
We affirm the trial court's judgment.
DAVID L. BRIDGES
JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
110690F.U05