Ricardo Vela Benavides v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 29th District Court of Palo Pinto County

11th Court of Appeals

Eastland, Texas

Opinion

Ricardo Vela Benavides

Appellant

Vs. No. 11-02-00069-CR B Appeal from Palo Pinto County

State of Texas

Appellee

This is an appeal from a judgment revoking community supervision. Appellant originally entered a plea of guilty to the offense of possession of methamphetamine. The trial court convicted appellant and assessed his punishment at confinement for 10 years and a $3,000 fine. Pursuant to the plea bargain agreement, the trial court suspended the imposition of the confinement portion of the sentence and placed appellant on community supervision for 10 years. At the hearing on the State=s amended motion to revoke, appellant entered pleas of true to each of the State=s allegations that he violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision. The trial court found that appellant had violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision, revoked his community supervision, and imposed the original sentence of confinement for 10 years. We affirm.

Appellant=s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he states that he has studied the entire record and that he has found no clear error which was preserved for appellate review. Counsel outlines the proceedings in the trial court and the evidence presented. Following the procedures outlined in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Cr.App.1969), counsel presents one arguable point of error.

Counsel contends that appellant=s pleas of true at the revocation hearing may not have been freely and voluntarily made. Counsel points out that appellant was not given the opportunity Ato articulate, in his own words, what could happen at the hearing.@ Also, counsel contends that appellant was not told that he had a right to plead not true; that he could require the State to call witnesses; that his attorney could cross-examine those witnesses; that he could testify in his own behalf; and that, if the trial court found that the State had not sustained its burden, his community supervision would not be revoked. Counsel contends that, without the Aopportunity to articulate what the hearing was about and the additional admonishment, there is some doubt that appellant truly understood what was to occur if he persisted in pleading >true.=@ We disagree.

The record reflects that the trial court thoroughly admonished appellant concerning his pleas of true. When appellant answered that he was pleading true because the allegations were true, the trial court asked if there were any other reasons why he was pleading true. Appellant answered, ANo, sir, just because it=s true.@ Appellant=s trial counsel stated that he believed appellant was competent to enter such a plea. The trial court then further admonished appellant concerning the ramifications of his pleas. Appellant indicated that he understood.

The record supports the trial court=s conclusions that appellant=s pleas of true were freely and voluntarily entered. The point of error is overruled.

Counsel has furnished appellant with a copy of the brief and has advised appellant of his right to review the record and file a pro se brief. A pro se brief has not been filed. Counsel has complied with the procedures outlined in Anders v. California, supra; Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex.Cr.App.1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Cr.App.1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Cr.App.1974); and Gainous v. State, supra.

Following the procedures outlined in Anders, we have independently reviewed the record. We note that, in a community supervision revocation hearing, the State has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a condition of community supervision has been violated. Jenkins v. State, 740 S.W.2d 435 (Tex.Cr.App.1983). Proof of one violation of the terms and conditions of community supervision is sufficient to support the revocation. McDonald v. State, 608 S.W.2d 192 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); Taylor v. State, 604 S.W.2d 175 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469 (Tex.Cr.App.1979). The trial court is the trier of the facts and determines the weight and credibility of the testimony. Garrett v. State, 619 S.W.2d 172 (Tex.Cr.App.1981); Barnett v. State, 615 S.W.2d 220 (Tex.Cr.App.1981). A plea of true alone is sufficient to support the trial court=s determination to revoke. Moses v. State, supra; Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127 (Tex.Cr.App.1979). Appellate review of an order revoking community supervision is limited to the issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion. Flournoy v. State, 589 S.W.2d 705 (Tex.Cr.App.1979).

Brandy Sparks, appellant=s supervising officer, testified that appellant had failed to make court-ordered payments and that appellant had consumed methamphetamine on two occasions all in violation of the terms and conditions of his community supervision. Appellant testified that the reason he tested positive for methamphetamine the first time was because he Awas constipated real bad@ and because he took Asome medicine for [his] constipation and other things.@ Appellant stated that methamphetamine Asometimes@cured his constipation. The second time, appellant testified that he Awas around the wrong people.@ Appellant stated that these people brought the drugs to his house and that it was his Achoice@ to allow it. He could not remember their names. Appellant further stated that he was having Aa hard time coping with stuff@because his wife had recently been killed in a car wreck.

The record reflects that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. We agree that the appeal is without merit.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

July 18, 2002

Do not publish. See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.3(b).

Panel consists of: Arnot, C.J., and

Wright, J., and McCall, J.