Opinion
No. 11-15-00218-CR
08-04-2016
LUIS EDGARDO SANCHEZ, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 142nd District Court Midland County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CR38366
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Luis Edgardo Sanchez, pleaded guilty to debit card abuse in 2011. The trial court deferred adjudication of his guilt and placed him on community supervision for two years. The State subsequently moved to adjudicate Appellant's guilt after he violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision. The trial court found that Appellant had violated three of the terms and conditions of his community supervision and adjudicated him guilty of debit card abuse. The trial court sentenced him to confinement for one year in a state jail facility. On appeal, Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it found two of the State's allegations to be "true" and violated his due process rights when it ordered, during the revocation hearing, that he take a drug test after he had reported to the court that he was "clean." We modify and affirm.
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 32.31 (West 2011).
I. Revocation Hearing
The terms of Appellant's community supervision required, among other things, that he (1) report to scheduled office visits and (2) notify Midland County Community Supervision and Corrections Department of changes in his address within three business days. He was also prohibited from using illegal drugs. At the revocation hearing, Appellant pleaded "not true" to failure to report to office visits and failure to report a change in address, but he pleaded "true" to illegal drug use. At the end of the hearing, the trial court asked Appellant if he would test negative for drug use if a test were administered that morning. Appellant said that he would test negative, and the trial court recessed and ordered the test; Appellant apparently tested positive for marihuana.
Appellant pleaded nolo contendere to possession of marihuana in Cause No. 145664 in the County Court of Midland County, Texas, on January 22, 2014; Appellant signed an offender's admission form, dated January 29, 2014, in which he admitted to marihuana use on January 12, 2014. --------
II. Standard of Review
We review a trial court's decision to revoke community supervision for an abuse of discretion. Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). When a trial court finds several violations of the terms and conditions of community supervision, we affirm the revocation order if the proof of any single allegation is sufficient. Sanchez v. State, 603 S.W.2d 869, 871 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980); Hart v. State, 264 S.W.3d 364, 367 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2008, pet. ref'd). Furthermore, a plea of true alone is sufficient to support a trial court's decision to revoke community supervision. Lockett v. State, No. 11-10-00085-CR, 2012 WL 2989104, at *2 (Tex. App.—Eastland July 19, 2012, pet. ref d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (citing Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979); Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979); Hays v. State, 933 S.W.2d 659, 661 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.)). When a defendant enters a plea of "true," he may not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the revocation. Id.
III. Analysis
A. State's Allegations
Appellant first argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it found Allegation Nos. 1 and 2 to be true. However, because Appellant pleaded "true" to Allegation No. 3 regarding his use of marihuana, we need not address his arguments on the other allegations. Even if the State failed to meet its burden of proof on the other allegations, Appellant's plea of true to the third allegation would, by itself, be enough to revoke the community supervision.
B. Due Process
Appellant next argues that the trial court violated his right to due process when it based its findings of "true," at least in part, on the results of the drug test administered on the day of the revocation hearing. The State argues that Appellant forfeited this issue when he did not object to the drug test. As we explain below, we agree with the State that Appellant did not object to the drug test that the trial court ordered during the hearing.
"To preserve error for appellate review, the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure require that the record show that the objection 'stated the grounds for the ruling that the complaining party sought from the trial court with sufficient specificity to make the trial court aware of the complaint, unless the specific grounds were apparent from the context.'" Clark v. State, 365 S.W.3d 333, 339 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (quoting TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A)). "The point of error on appeal must comport with the objection made at trial." Id. (citing Thomas v. State, 723 S.W.2d 696, 700 (Tex. Crim. App. 1986)). "Therefore, if a party fails to properly object to constitutional errors at trial, these errors can be forfeited." Id. (citing Briggs v. State, 789 S.W.2d 918, 924 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990)). Because Appellant failed to timely object, he has forfeited that issue. TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a)(1)(A); Briggs, 789 S.W.2d at 924. But even if Appellant had preserved his complaint, the trial court made it clear that it did not base the revocation or the punishment on the results of the drug test. The trial court stated that it would have used a negative result as a factor in determining whether to extend Appellant's community supervision.
Because Appellant pleaded "true" to one allegation, we do not need to address his sufficiency argument on his other allegations. We also overrule Appellant's due process issue because Appellant forfeited it. After a review of the record, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found that Appellant violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision, revoked his community supervision, adjudicated him guilty of debit card abuse, assessed his punishment at one year in a state jail facility, and sentenced him.
IV. This Court's Ruling
As requested by the State, we modify the judgment of the trial court to reflect that Appellant was convicted of the offense of debit card abuse, rather than credit card abuse. As modified, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.2(b). August 4, 2016
MIKE WILLSON
JUSTICE Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
Willson, J., and Bailey, J.