Carole Laverne Turner v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 167th District Court of Travis County

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS,
AT AUSTIN
NO. 3-92-276-CR
CAROLE LAVERNE TURNER,

APPELLANT

 
vs.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

 
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 167TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
NO. 69,741, HONORABLE BOB JONES, JUDGE PRESIDING

PER CURIAM

This is an appeal from an order of the district court revoking probation. Appellant was placed on probation following her conviction for theft of property having a value of at least $200 but less than $10,000. Act of May 30, 1975, 64th Leg., R.S., ch. 342, 10, 1975 Tex. Gen. Laws 912, 914 (Tex. Penal Code Ann. 31.03, since amended). The punishment is imprisonment for ten years.

The table of contents of appellant's brief lists, as point of error one, the contention that the evidence does not support the order revoking probation. The record reflects, however, that appellant pleaded true to the alleged violations of the conditions of her probation. This plea is alone sufficient to sustain the court's order. Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). The point of error is overruled.

In point of error one as it is briefed, appellant urges that her plea of true was involuntary. She asserts that she pleaded true only because of threats by the trial court. She cites no evidence in the record to support this allegation and we have found none. Point of error one is overruled.

In point of error two, appellant argues that the punishment assessed is cruel and unusual because she had "successfully completed eight years of probation on this case" and because none of the violations involved the commission of another offense. The record does not support appellant's claim that she had successfully completed eight years of probation. To the contrary, the record reflects that several motions to revoke appellant's probation were filed during those eight years. This fact was noted by the trial court when it observed, "This is the fifth time we've given you a second chance."

The punishment assessed is within the range prescribed for the offense. Ordinarily, if the punishment does not exceed the statutory limit it is not cruel or unusual. McNew v. State, 608 S.W.2d 166 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Appellant has not demonstrated that the punishment is disproportionate to the offense. Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983). Point of error two is overruled.

The order revoking probation is affirmed.

 

[Before Chief Justice Carroll, Justices Aboussie and Jones]

Affirmed

Filed: August 11, 1993

[Do Not Publish]