Leesa Marie Parrack v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 266th District Court of Erath County

11th Court of Appeals

Eastland, Texas

Opinion

Leesa Marie Parrack

Appellant

Vs. No. 11-01-00311-CR B Appeal from Erath County

State of Texas

Appellee

The trial court revoked appellant=s community supervision and imposed the original sentence of confinement for 8 years and a $1,000 fine. We affirm.

Issue Presented

Appellant presents one point of error on appeal. Appellant complains that the trial court denied her basic rights by not considering the full range of punishment. We disagree.

The Trial Court=s Punishment

Appellant entered a plea of guilty to the offense of injury to a child. The trial court convicted appellant and assessed punishment at confinement for 8 years and a $1,000 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 8 years.

On August 9, 2000, 14 months after appellant was placed on community supervision, the State filed a motion to revoke appellant=s community supervision; and, on October 26, 2000, the State filed an amended motion to revoke appellant=s community supervision. Appellant and the State reached an agreement to amend the terms of her community supervision, and the trial court entered an order amending the terms of community supervision. In the amended order, the trial court required appellant to serve 90 days in the Erath County Jail and extended the term of community supervision for 1 year.

On July 20, 2001, the State filed a second motion to revoke. The State alleged a number of violations of the conditions of community supervision. On September 17, 2001, the trial court held a revocation hearing. At the hearing, appellant admitted that all of the alleged violations were true. After hearing testimony from appellant and two character witnesses for appellant, the trial court revoked appellant=s community supervision and sentenced her to 8 years confinement in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and a $1,000 fine.

We review the trial court=s sentence of appellant under an abuse of discretion standard. See Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809, 814 (Tex.Cr.App.1984). As a general rule, if a sentence is within the proper punishment range, the sentence will not be disturbed on appeal. Jackson v. State, supra at 814. We note that the sentence is within the punishment range for a third degree felony offense. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. ' 12.34 (Vernon 1994).

Appellant claims that the trial court violated her rights by failing to consider the full punishment range. To prevail on a claim that the trial court violated her due process rights, it is appellant=s burden to establish that the trial court arbitrarily refused to consider the full punishment range. McClenan v. State, 661 S.W.2d 108, 110 (Tex.Cr.App.1983). Appellant cannot meet her burden. Nothing in the record supports appellant=s contention that the trial court did not consider the full range of punishment. In fact, the record supports the proposition that the trial court did consider the full range of punishment. The trial court explained to appellant twice that, if it found that the allegations in the motion to revoke probation were true, one of the remedies available to it was to revoke her probation and impose a sentence. The record establishes that the trial court considered the evidence, possible remedies, and appellant=s history before it sentenced appellant. We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

This Court=s Ruling

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

TERRY McCALL

August 8, 2002 JUSTICE

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

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

Wright, J., and McCall, J.