Margaret Hernandez v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 266th District Court of Erath County

11th Court of Appeals

Eastland, Texas

Opinion

Margaret E. Hernandez

Appellant

Vs. No. 11-02-00147-CR -- Appeal from Erath County

State of Texas

Appellee

Margaret E. Hernandez appeals from the judgment revoking her community supervision. Appellant originally pleaded guilty to the offense of forgery, a state jail felony. Pursuant to the plea bargain agreement, the trial court assessed punishment at confinement in a state jail facility for 2 years and a fine of $1,000, but the court suspended the imposition of confinement and placed appellant on community supervision for 5 years. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke appellant=s community supervision. After a hearing in which appellant pleaded true to the State=s allegations, the trial court revoked appellant=s community supervision and assessed punishment at confinement for 2 years in a state jail facility and a $1,000 fine. We affirm.

Appellant presents three issues on appeal. In the first issue, she contends that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking her community supervision because she established the affirmative defense of inability to pay. In the second issue, she contends that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking her community supervision because she established the affirmative defense that she was unable to perform the required community service and was also unable to report to her probation officer. In her third issue, appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to consider alternate means of punishment other than revocation and imprisonment.

Appellant=s plea of true to a violation of just one condition of her community supervision is alone sufficient to support the revocation of her community supervision. Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Cole v. Sate, 578 S.W.2d 127 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); see also Benoit v. State, 561 S.W.2d 810, 818-19 (Tex.Cr.App.1977). At the hearing, appellant persisted in pleading true despite the trial court=s warnings that her plea constituted a judicial confession, that no other evidence was needed to establish the truth of the allegations, and that her plea alone could result in the revocation of her community supervision and the imposition of a sentence of confinement for 2 years and the $1,000 fine previously assessed. Appellant indicated that she understood the consequences of pleading true. Appellant=s plea of true is sufficient to support the revocation notwithstanding any defensive issues subsequently raised by appellant. Cole v. State, supra; Hays v. State, 933 S.W.2d 659 (Tex.App. - San Antonio 1996, no pet=n).

Furthermore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering appellant to a term of confinement. See Flournoy v. State, 589 S.W.2d 705 (Tex.Cr.App.1979). Not only did appellant plead true to the allegations in the State=s motion to revoke, but appellant=s community supervision officer testified about appellant=s actions while on community supervision and about appellant=s violations of the terms and conditions of her community supervision. The community supervision officer gave her opinion that appellant Ais not willing to do probation.@ We find no abuse of discretion by the trial court. Appellant=s issues are overruled.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

W. G. ARNOT, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

December 12, 2002

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

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

Wright, J., and McCall, J.