Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Adam Gonzales v. The State of Texas
Date: 03-03-2017
Case Number: 13-16-00300-CR 13-16-00301-CR
Judge: Rogelio Valdez
Court: COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Hon. Mark A. Gonzalez
Defendant's Attorney:
Hon. Stephen W. Byrne
Description:
On August 25, 2009, appellant pleaded guilty to both offenses, and pursuant to
appellant’s plea agreement with the State, the trial court deferred adjudication in both
cases and placed appellant on community supervision for a period of ten years. The
State filed its first motion to revoke on May 1, 2009, and the trial court accepted
appellant’s pleas of true to all of the State’s allegations that he had violated the terms of
his community supervision. However, the trial court did not revoke appellant’s community
supervision and instead continued appellant on community supervision modifying the
conditions to include, as a sanction, confinement for forty-five to one hundred days in an
intermediate sanction facility.
On July 2, 2014, the trial court held a hearing on the State’s second motion to
revoke, accepted appellant’s pleas of true to the alleged violations, and found that
appellant had violated the terms of his community supervision. The trial court adjudicated
appellant guilty of each offense and assessed his punishment at confinement for ten
years. The trial court suspended those sentences and placed appellant on community
supervision for eight years in each case, with confinement in the Substance Abuse Felony
Punishment Facility for three to twelve months as a condition of community supervision.
3
On January 4, 2016, the State filed its third motion to revoke community
supervision in both causes alleging that appellant violated the terms of his community
supervision by (1) committing the offense of theft, (2) failing to report to his community
supervision officer on six separate occasions, (3) failing to remain within Nueces County,
Texas without being permitted to depart by the court or community supervision officer, (4)
failing to pay court costs, additional court costs, presentence investigation fee, crime
stoppers fee, and monthly supervision fee, and (5) being discharged unsuccessfully from
Treatment Associates on August 18, 2015. At the hearing on the State’s motion to revoke,
appellant pleaded “true” to all of the State’s allegations except that he pleaded “not true”
to the allegations that he committed theft and that he failed to remain in Nueces County,
Texas without being permitted to depart by the court or community supervision officer.
The trial court accepted appellant’s pleas of true and found those allegations to be true.
The trial court then held a hearing on appellant’s pleas of “not true,” and after hearing
evidence, it found those allegations to be true. The trial court then revoked appellant’s
community supervision, and after hearing evidence on punishment, sentenced appellant
to eight years’ confinement for each offense to run concurrently. This appeal followed.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW AND APPLICABLE LAW
We review the trial court’s order revoking community supervision for an abuse of
discretion. Hacker v. State, 389 S.W.3d 860, 865 (Tex. Crim. App 2013). A trial court
may revoke community supervision if the State proves by a preponderance of the
evidence that the defendant violated a condition of community supervision as alleged in
the motion to revoke. Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 764 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
A finding of a single violation of community supervision is sufficient to support
revocation. Smith v. State, 286 S.W.3d 333, 342 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (“We have long
held that ‘one sufficient ground for revocation would support the trial court’s order
revoking’ community supervision.”); Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim.
App. [Panel Op.] 1980); Jones v. State, 571 S.W.2d 191 193–94 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel
Op.] 1978). In addition, a defendant’s plea of true standing alone is sufficient to support
a trial court’s decision to revoke community supervision. Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127,
128 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979); Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel
Op.] 1979).
III. ANALYSIS
Appellant pleaded true to the allegations of, among other things, failing to report to
his probation officer on six separate occasions, a finding he does not challenge on appeal.
A failure to report violation provides a sufficient basis for the trial court’s decision to revoke
community supervision. See, e.g., Flournoy v. State, 589 S.W.2d 705, 707, 709–10 (Tex.
Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979) (finding no abuse of discretion in trial court’s revocation of
community supervision for finding that the defendant failed to report); Greer v. State, 999
S.W.2d 484, 489 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. denied) (determining that
the trial court had not abused its discretion by revoking the defendant’s community
supervision after finding that the defendant had failed to report for a single month); Guerra
v. State, 664 S.W.2d 412, 413 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1983, no pet.) (explaining that
the trial court did not abuse its discretion to revoke after finding that the defendant failed
to report for three consecutive months); see also Gonzalez v. State, No. 13–14–00308–
CR, 2015 WL 4140667, at *2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi July 9, 2015, pet. ref’d) (mem.
5
op., not designated for publication). Because appellant’s plea of true to failing to report
is sufficient to support revocation, we need not address appellant’s contentions
concerning whether the State proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he
committed the crime of theft or that he failed to remain in Nueces County, Texas without
obtaining permission from his community supervision officer or the court to leave. See
Smith, 286 S.W.3d at 342; Rivera v. State, 688 S.W.2d 659, 660 (Tex. App.—Corpus
Christi 1985, no pet.) (“We will not address appellant’s grounds of error [attacking the
sufficiency of the evidence to support the alleged violations] individually, as one probation
violation will support the trial court’s order to revoke, and a plea of ‘true,’ standing alone,
is sufficient to support revocation.”) (internal citations omitted). Therefore, we conclude
that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the State’s motion to revoke
appellant’s community supervision. We overrule appellant’s sole issue.
Finally, this Court has the power to modify the judgment of the trial court to make
the record speak the truth when we have the necessary information to do so. TEX. APP.
P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Here, the
record clearly reflects that in both causes appellant pleaded “not true” to the State’s
allegation number “7a” failing to remain within Nueces County, Texas unless permitted to
depart by the court or community supervision officer. However, the judgments in each
cause states that appellant only pleaded “not true” to the State’s allegation number one.
Therefore, we modify the judgments in appellate cause number 13-16-00300-CR and
appellate cause number 13-16-301-CR to reflect that appellant also pleaded “not true” to
the State’s allegation number 7a.
appellant’s plea agreement with the State, the trial court deferred adjudication in both
cases and placed appellant on community supervision for a period of ten years. The
State filed its first motion to revoke on May 1, 2009, and the trial court accepted
appellant’s pleas of true to all of the State’s allegations that he had violated the terms of
his community supervision. However, the trial court did not revoke appellant’s community
supervision and instead continued appellant on community supervision modifying the
conditions to include, as a sanction, confinement for forty-five to one hundred days in an
intermediate sanction facility.
On July 2, 2014, the trial court held a hearing on the State’s second motion to
revoke, accepted appellant’s pleas of true to the alleged violations, and found that
appellant had violated the terms of his community supervision. The trial court adjudicated
appellant guilty of each offense and assessed his punishment at confinement for ten
years. The trial court suspended those sentences and placed appellant on community
supervision for eight years in each case, with confinement in the Substance Abuse Felony
Punishment Facility for three to twelve months as a condition of community supervision.
3
On January 4, 2016, the State filed its third motion to revoke community
supervision in both causes alleging that appellant violated the terms of his community
supervision by (1) committing the offense of theft, (2) failing to report to his community
supervision officer on six separate occasions, (3) failing to remain within Nueces County,
Texas without being permitted to depart by the court or community supervision officer, (4)
failing to pay court costs, additional court costs, presentence investigation fee, crime
stoppers fee, and monthly supervision fee, and (5) being discharged unsuccessfully from
Treatment Associates on August 18, 2015. At the hearing on the State’s motion to revoke,
appellant pleaded “true” to all of the State’s allegations except that he pleaded “not true”
to the allegations that he committed theft and that he failed to remain in Nueces County,
Texas without being permitted to depart by the court or community supervision officer.
The trial court accepted appellant’s pleas of true and found those allegations to be true.
The trial court then held a hearing on appellant’s pleas of “not true,” and after hearing
evidence, it found those allegations to be true. The trial court then revoked appellant’s
community supervision, and after hearing evidence on punishment, sentenced appellant
to eight years’ confinement for each offense to run concurrently. This appeal followed.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW AND APPLICABLE LAW
We review the trial court’s order revoking community supervision for an abuse of
discretion. Hacker v. State, 389 S.W.3d 860, 865 (Tex. Crim. App 2013). A trial court
may revoke community supervision if the State proves by a preponderance of the
evidence that the defendant violated a condition of community supervision as alleged in
the motion to revoke. Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 764 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
A finding of a single violation of community supervision is sufficient to support
revocation. Smith v. State, 286 S.W.3d 333, 342 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (“We have long
held that ‘one sufficient ground for revocation would support the trial court’s order
revoking’ community supervision.”); Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim.
App. [Panel Op.] 1980); Jones v. State, 571 S.W.2d 191 193–94 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel
Op.] 1978). In addition, a defendant’s plea of true standing alone is sufficient to support
a trial court’s decision to revoke community supervision. Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127,
128 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979); Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel
Op.] 1979).
III. ANALYSIS
Appellant pleaded true to the allegations of, among other things, failing to report to
his probation officer on six separate occasions, a finding he does not challenge on appeal.
A failure to report violation provides a sufficient basis for the trial court’s decision to revoke
community supervision. See, e.g., Flournoy v. State, 589 S.W.2d 705, 707, 709–10 (Tex.
Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979) (finding no abuse of discretion in trial court’s revocation of
community supervision for finding that the defendant failed to report); Greer v. State, 999
S.W.2d 484, 489 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, pet. denied) (determining that
the trial court had not abused its discretion by revoking the defendant’s community
supervision after finding that the defendant had failed to report for a single month); Guerra
v. State, 664 S.W.2d 412, 413 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1983, no pet.) (explaining that
the trial court did not abuse its discretion to revoke after finding that the defendant failed
to report for three consecutive months); see also Gonzalez v. State, No. 13–14–00308–
CR, 2015 WL 4140667, at *2 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi July 9, 2015, pet. ref’d) (mem.
5
op., not designated for publication). Because appellant’s plea of true to failing to report
is sufficient to support revocation, we need not address appellant’s contentions
concerning whether the State proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he
committed the crime of theft or that he failed to remain in Nueces County, Texas without
obtaining permission from his community supervision officer or the court to leave. See
Smith, 286 S.W.3d at 342; Rivera v. State, 688 S.W.2d 659, 660 (Tex. App.—Corpus
Christi 1985, no pet.) (“We will not address appellant’s grounds of error [attacking the
sufficiency of the evidence to support the alleged violations] individually, as one probation
violation will support the trial court’s order to revoke, and a plea of ‘true,’ standing alone,
is sufficient to support revocation.”) (internal citations omitted). Therefore, we conclude
that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the State’s motion to revoke
appellant’s community supervision. We overrule appellant’s sole issue.
Finally, this Court has the power to modify the judgment of the trial court to make
the record speak the truth when we have the necessary information to do so. TEX. APP.
P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Here, the
record clearly reflects that in both causes appellant pleaded “not true” to the State’s
allegation number “7a” failing to remain within Nueces County, Texas unless permitted to
depart by the court or community supervision officer. However, the judgments in each
cause states that appellant only pleaded “not true” to the State’s allegation number one.
Therefore, we modify the judgments in appellate cause number 13-16-00300-CR and
appellate cause number 13-16-301-CR to reflect that appellant also pleaded “not true” to
the State’s allegation number 7a.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of Adam Gonzales v. The State of Texas?
The outcome was: We affirm the trial court’s judgments in both causes as modified.
Which court heard Adam Gonzales v. The State of Texas?
This case was heard in COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, TX. The presiding judge was Rogelio Valdez.
Who were the attorneys in Adam Gonzales v. The State of Texas?
Plaintiff's attorney: Hon. Mark A. Gonzalez. Defendant's attorney: Hon. Stephen W. Byrne.
When was Adam Gonzales v. The State of Texas decided?
This case was decided on March 3, 2017.