CICELI MONIQUE WILKERSON, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Annotate this Case

AFFIRM and Opinion Filed December 19, 2006
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-06-00807-CR
............................
CICELI MONIQUE WILKERSON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
.............................................................
On Appeal from the 380th Judicial District Court
Collin County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 380-80482-05
.............................................................
OPINION
Before Justices Whittington, Moseley, and O'Neill
Opinion By Justice O'Neill
        Ciceli Monique Wilkerson waived a jury and pleaded guilty to theft of property valued at $1500 or more but less than $20,000. See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. § 31.03(a), (e)(4)(A) (Vernon Supp. 2006). Pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial court assessed punishment at two years' confinement in a state jail facility, probated for two years, and a $200 fine. The State later moved to revoke appellant's community supervision, alleging several violations. After a hearing, the trial court found the allegations true, revoked appellant's community supervision, and assessed punishment at two years' confinement in a state jail facility. In a single issue, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in revoking her community supervision. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
        Appellate review of a probation revocation is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its discretion, and 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). The State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence appellant violated the terms and conditions of his probation. Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 874 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). In a revocation proceeding, the trial judge is the sole trier of the facts, 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.) (en banc).
        A finding of a single violation of community supervision is sufficient to support revocation. See Sanchez v. State, 603 S.W.2d 869, 871 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980); Leach v. State, 170 S.W.3d 669, 672 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2005, pet. ref'd). Thus, in order to prevail, appellant must successfully challenge all the findings that support the revocation order. See Jones v. State, 571 S.W.2d 191, 193-94 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978); Harris v. State, 160 S.W.3d 621, 626 (Tex. App.-Waco 2005, no pet.).
        Appellant argues the trial court abused its discretion in revoking her community supervision because she did not have the ability to pay the fine, fees, and costs, and the trial court denied her right to call corroborating witnesses. Appellant asserts the State failed to show the violations were willful or otherwise unjustified. The State responds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking appellant's community supervision because appellant pleaded true to violating all of the allegations in the State's motion to revoke.
        In its motion to revoke community supervision, the State alleged appellant committed eight separate violations to the conditions of community supervision. During the revocation hearing, appellant testified she was freely and voluntarily pleading true to all eight of the allegations because they were true. Appellant testified she understood that by pleading true to all of the allegations, she was giving up her rights to call witnesses to testify on her behalf and to cross-examine any witnesses brought by the State. Appellant's signed judicial confession and stipulation of facts was admitted without objection.
        Appellant testified she failed to report or “do anything at all” on the requirements of her community supervision because she could not pay anything and was afraid. Appellant admitted she never contacted her probation officer about the problems she was experiencing, such as not having a job and moving “from hotel to hotel” to escape an abusive boyfriend. Appellant asked the trial judge to continue her community supervision, claiming she would live with her friend Valerie Kaufman and would have employment babysitting and tutoring her friend DeWanna Stewart's two children after school. When appellant asked the trial judge if she could call Stewart or Kaufman to testify, the judge said, “[T]here's no point,” then proceeded to find the allegations true, revoke appellant's community supervision, and impose the sentence.
        The trial judge was free to believe or disbelieve any witness's testimony, and resolve any conflicts in the evidence. See Lee, 952 S.W.2d at 897. Because proof of one violation is sufficient to support the revocation, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in doing so. See id.; see also Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 21 (Vernon Supp. 2006). We resolve appellant's sole issue against her.
        We affirm the trial court's judgment.
 
                                                          
                                                          MICHAEL J. O'NEILL
                                                          JUSTICE
Do Not Publish
Tex. R. App. P. 47
060807F.U05
 
 

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.