Richard Woolverton v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 173rd District Court of Henderson County

NO. 12-02-00357-CR
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT
TYLER, TEXAS

RICHARD WOOLVERTON,

 
APPEAL FROM THE 173RD

APPELLANT

 

V.

 
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

 
HENDERSON COUNTY, TEXASMEMORANDUM OPINION

Richard Woolverton ("Appellant") appeals the trial court's order revoking his community supervision. Appellant raises two issues on appeal. We affirm.

 

Background

Appellant was charged by indictment with possession of a controlled substance and pleaded guilty. The trial court accepted Appellant's plea, found Appellant guilty and sentenced Appellant to confinement for two years, but suspended the sentence and placed Appellant on community supervision for five years.

On March 20, 2002, the State filed a motion to revoke Appellant's community supervision alleging that Appellant had violated certain conditions thereof. Appellant pleaded "true" to the allegations in the State's motion. Following a hearing on the matter, the trial court found the allegations in the State's motion to be true, revoked Appellant's community supervision and sentenced him to confinement for one year. This appeal followed.

 

Revocation of Community supervision

In his first issue, Appellant contends that the trial court erred in revoking his community supervision because the evidence is factually insufficient to support the revocation. In his second issue, Appellant argues that the revocation was void because the underlying conviction was based on an involuntary guilty plea.

We will not consider Appellant's contention that the revocation is void because of alleged error related to the underlying conviction. An appeal from an order revoking probation is limited to the propriety of the revocation and does not include a review of the original conviction. See Traylor v. State, 561 S.W.2d 492, 494 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). By failing to appeal when he was placed on community supervision, Appellant waived his right to a review of the original trial and conviction. See Chavez v. State, 375 S.W.2d 729, 730 (Tex. Crim. App. 1964).

The only question presented in an appeal from an order revoking probation is whether the trial court abused its discretion in revoking the defendant's probation. See Lloyd v. State, 574 S.W.2d 159, 160 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). The standard of proof in a revocation proceeding is a preponderance of the evidence. Id. In order to satisfy its burden of proof, the State must prove that the greater weight of the credible evidence before the trial court creates a reasonable belief that a condition of community supervision has been violated as alleged in the motion to revoke. See Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). In the instant case, Appellant pleaded "true" to each of the State's allegations. A plea of true to any one of the alleged violations contained in a motion to revoke is sufficient to support the trial court's order revoking probation. Moore v. State, 11 S.W.3d 495, 498 n. 1 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.). Once a plea of true has been entered, a defendant may not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the subsequent revocation. Id. (citing Rincon v. State, 615 S.W.2d 746, 747 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1981); Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979); Hays v. State, 933 S.W.2d 659, 661 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1996, no pet.)). Therefore, since Appellant pleaded "true" to the State's allegations, he may not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court's revocation of his community supervision. We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Appellant's community supervision. Appellant's issues one and two are overruled.

 

Conclusion

Having overruled Appellant's issues one and two, we affirm the trial court's order revoking Appellant's community supervision.

 

SAM GRIFFITH

Justice

 

Opinion delivered July 31, 2003.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., and Griffith, J.

 
(DO NOT PUBLISH)