Ulysses Deaudre Benton v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 252nd District Court of Jefferson County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
_________________
NO. 09-10-00381-CR
_________________
ULYSSES DEAUDRE BENTON, Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
__________________________________________________________________ ___
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court
Jefferson County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 09-06393
_______________________________________________________________ ______
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pursuant to a plea bargain, appellant Ulysses Deaudre Benton pleaded guilty to
burglary of a building. The trial court deferred adjudication of guilt and placed Benton on
unadjudicated community supervision for three years. The State filed a motion to revoke
the community supervision. Finding that Benton violated the community supervision
order, the trial court adjudicated Benton’s guilt and sentenced him to two years in a state
jail facility. Benton filed this appeal.
In issue one, Benton argues there was insufficient evidence to revoke his
community supervision. We review a trial court’s decision to revoke a defendant’s
1
community supervision under an abuse of discretion standard. Rickels v. State, 202
S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). The State’s burden of proof is by a
preponderance of the evidence; proof of a single violation of probation is sufficient to
support revocation. Id. at 763-64; see Smith v. State, 286 S.W.3d 333, 342 (Tex.Crim.
App. 2009); see also Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980).
Benton pleaded true to the allegation that he failed to report to his probation officer from
December 2009 through June 2010. His plea of true to this one ground is sufficient
evidence to support the trial court’s revocation of his unadjudicated community
supervision. Consequently, we need not consider his arguments concerning the alleged
violations to which he pleaded “not true.” Moore, 605 S.W.2d at 926. We overrule issue
one.
In issue two, Benton argues the trial court abused its discretion in assessing
punishment without proper evidence relevant to punishment. He contends that the trial
court, after deciding to revoke the unadjudicated community supervision, did not
consider any other evidence before imposing the sentence. Benton asserts that an updated
PSI report should have been prepared for the revocation proceeding. He testified that a
PSI report had been prepared in his case, apparently around the time of his original plea
hearing. Article 42.12, section 9, does not require that a PSI report be updated for a
revocation proceeding. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 9 (West Supp.
2010). Article 37.07, section 3(d), provides that “[w]hen the judge assesses the
2
punishment, he may order an investigative report as contemplated in Section 9 of Article
42.12 . . . .” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 37.07, § 3(d) (West Supp. 2010). It does not
appear that Benton requested a report. The trial court heard the testimony of Benton and
his probation officer during the revocation hearing, and was free to consider that evidence
in assessment of punishment. We overrule issue two.
The conviction is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
______________________________
DAVID GAULTNEY
Justice
Submitted on May 31, 2011
Opinion Delivered September 28, 2011
Do Not Publish
Before Gaultney, Kreger, and Horton, JJ.
3
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.