Nos. 05-07-01635-CR, 05-07-01636-CR
Opinion Filed November 25, 2008. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2 Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. F05-57843-UI, F06-64304-LI.
Before Chief Justice THOMAS and Justices MORRIS and FRANCIS. Opinion By Justice FRANCIS.
MOLLY FRANCIS, Justice.
Brandon Lee Reyna appeals following the adjudication of his guilt in each case. In four points of error, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in each case by proceeding with an adjudication of guilt and by assessing a term of imprisonment. We affirm the trial court's judgments.
Background
Appellant waived a jury and pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana in an amount of five pounds or less but more than four ounces, and aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, a firearm. See Tex. Health Safety Code Ann. § 481.121(a), (b)(3) (Vernon 2003); Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.03(a) (Vernon 2003). Pursuant to plea agreements, the trial court deferred adjudicating guilt, placed appellant on community supervision for five and ten years, respectively, and assessed fines of $1500 and $3000. The State later moved to adjudicate guilt in each case, alleging appellant violated the terms of his community supervision. In its motions, the State alleged appellant committed a new possession of marijuana offense, tested positive for marijuana and amphetamine use, failed to report, failed to give notice of a change in residence or employment, and failed to pay fees. During a hearing on the motions, appellant pleaded true to the allegations. Appellant's signed, voluntary pleas of true and stipulations of evidence were admitted into evidence. Appellant testified he stopped reporting after he tested positive for marijuana and amphetamine use because he was afraid he would go to prison. Appellant was arrested one month later on a new possession of marijuana offense. Appellant told the court that even though he did not want to face the consequences of testing positive for drug use and failed to report, he believed he deserved another chance and could be successful on community supervision. After hearing testimony, the trial court granted the State's motions, adjudicated appellant guilty in each case, and assessed punishment at two years confinement in a State jail facility for possession of marijuana and sixteen years imprisonment for aggravated robbery. Applicable Law
Appellate review of a probation revocation is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its discretion. See Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006). We examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's findings. See Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493-94 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984). An order revoking probation must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning the greater weight of the credible evidence which would create a reasonable belief that a defendant has violated a condition of his probation. See Rickels, 202 S.W.3d at 763-64. In a revocation proceeding, the trial judge is the sole trier of the facts, and determines the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to the testimony. See Lee v. State, 952 S.W.2d 894, 897 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1997, no pet.). Discussion
Appellant argues that despite his pleas of true, the trial court abused its discretion by proceeding to an adjudication of guilt and sentencing him to prison because his youth and immaturity merited a continuation of his community supervision. Appellant asserts although his drug issues and fear of going to prison caused him to quit reporting after a positive urinalysis test, the trial court should have given him an opportunity to remain on community supervision. Appellant testified he failed to report after testing positive for marijuana and amphetamine use. Appellant's admission he failed to report to the probation department, standing alone, is sufficient to support the trial court's judgment revoking community supervision. See Watts v. State, 645 S.W.2d 461, 463 (Tex.Crim.App. 1983); Lewis v. State, 195 S.W.3d 205, 209 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2006, no pet.). Moreover, once appellant was adjudicated guilty, the trial court had no option but to sentence appellant to a prison term on the aggravated robbery offense. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 3g(a)(1)(F) (Vernon Supp. 2008). We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in adjudicating appellant guilty and assessing a prison sentence in each case. See Rickels, 202 S.W.3d at 763-64. We overrule appellant's four points of error. We affirm the trial court's judgment in each case.