Ronnie Hernandez v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 38th Judicial District Court of Medina County

MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04- 05-00703-CR
Ronnie HERNANDEZ,

Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee
From the 38th Judicial District Court, Medina County, Texas

Trial Court No. 02-02-8614-CR

Honorable Mickey R. Pennington , Judge Presiding (1)

Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion , Justice

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 13, 2006

AFFIRMED

This is an appeal from an order revoking defendant's community supervision. Because defendant's complaints on appeal are without merit, we affirm.

DISCUSSION

In his first issue, defendant asserts he was denied his due process right to confront witnesses, to have a "'neutral and detached' hearing body", and to not incriminate himself. Defendant bases his argument, in part, on defense counsel's announcement of ready and the fact that the trial court questioned defendant about his past charges and his plea to the allegations set forth in the State's motion to revoke. According to defendant, the announcement of ready was "a clear indication of [his] intention to plead 'Not True'" and the trial court's asking him questions "transformed" him into a witness and relieved the State of its burden of proof. Because none of these complaints were raised at trial, defendant has not preserved his complaints for appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 33.1.

In his second issue, defendant asserts the evidence is legally insufficient to support the order of revocation. 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 a defendant pleads true to the allegations in the State's motion to revoke community supervision during the revocation proceeding, he may not subsequently challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. Id. Here, defendant pled true to the allegations that he failed to pay various costs, fines, and fees; therefore, the evidence is sufficient.

For these reasons, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH

1. The Honorable Antonio Cantu, sitting by assignment, presided over the hearing on the State's motion to revoke defendant's community supervision.