Michael Eric Gold v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 290th Judicial District Court of Bexar County

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-03-00408-CR

Michael Eric GOLD,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2000-CR-4829-A

Honorable Sharon MacRae, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Sitting: Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 3, 2003

AFFIRMED

Defendant, Michael Eric Gold, pled guilty to the felony offense of burglary of a habitation with the intent to commit assault. The trial court assessed his punishment at eight years' confinement and a $1,000 fine, but suspended the sentence and placed Gold on eight years probation. Subsequently, the trial court revoked defendant's probation and sentenced him to eight years' confinement. The defendant appeals the judgment revoking his community supervision. We affirm.

SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

In a single issue on appeal, defendant asserts there is insufficient evidence to support the trial court's revocation of his community supervision. Defendant contends the conditions of his probation were so vague that he was not on notice of what the probation department expected of him. Defendant claims this lack of notice denied him his due process rights because the State could not establish a violation of those conditions by a preponderance of the evidence.

The sole question in our review of the trial court's order to revoke defendant's probation is whether the trial court abused its discretion. Jackson v. State, 645 S.W.2d 303, 305 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983). In a probation revocation hearing, the State must prove defendant violated a condition of his probation by a preponderance of the evidence. Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 874 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). A plea of true, standing alone, is sufficient to support the trial court's order of revocation. Hays v. State, 933 S.W.2d 659, 661 (Tex. App.--San Antonio 1996, no pet.). When defendant pleads true to the allegations in the State's motion to revoke probation during the probation revocation proceeding, he may not subsequently challenge the sufficiency of evidence. Id.

As grounds in its motion to revoke defendant's community supervision, the State argues defendant failed to: (1) report to his probation officer; (2) pay the periodic fine payments; and (3) comply with the rules and regulations of the South Texas Offenders Program. At the hearing to revoke his community supervision, defendant unequivocally plead true to these violations. In addition to pleading true, defendant testified he stopped coming to the monthly appointments because he suffered a relapse into drug use. Defendant's probation officer testified and confirmed that defendant had missed his scheduled appointments. The probation officer further explained that the program had a zero tolerance policy on absences. We have reviewed defendant's arguments that the terms of his probation were so vague as to deny him the "rudiments of due process." Considering defendant's testimony during the revocation proceeding and his compliance with the terms of his probation before his relapse into drug use, we conclude those arguments are without merit. Defendant's plea of true to the probation violations is sufficient to support the trial court's decision. In light of defendant's testimony, his plea and his probation officer's testimony, we conclude the trial court had more than a sufficient amount of evidence to revoke defendant's community supervision. Therefore, we conclude the trial court did not err in revoking defendant's community supervision.

CONCLUSION

We overrule defendant's issue on appeal and affirm the trial court's judgment

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH