AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed June 17, 2014.

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01475-CR

No. 05-13-01476-CR

GARY WAYNE SLUUS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F09-58153-W, F12-14466-W

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Moseley, O’Neill, and FitzGerald

Opinion by Justice O’Neill

Gary Wayne Sluus appeals the revocation of his community supervision in these cases. 

In a single issue, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion when it revoked his 

community supervision. We affirm the trial court’s judgments.

Appellant waived a jury and pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine in an 

amount less than one gram and felony DWI. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN.

§ 481.112(a), (b) (West 2010); TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. §§ 49.04(a), 49.09(b)(2) (West Supp. 

2013). Pursuant to plea agreements, the trial court assessed punishment at ten years’ 
-2-

imprisonment, probated for five years, and a $2,000 fine. The State later moved to revoke 

community supervision, alleging appellant violated three terms of his community supervision, 

including that appellant failed to submit a non-dilute random urine sample , failed to report for 

his Eye Scan, and operated a motor vehicle that was not equipped with a Deep Lung Breath 

Analysis Mechanism. Appellant pleaded true to all of the allegations in a hearing on the 

motions. Appellant’s signed pleas of true and stipulations of evidence were admitted into 

evidence without objection. The trial court found the allegations true, revoked appellant’s 

community supervision, and assessed punishment at ten years’ imprisonment in each case.

In his sole issue on appeal, appellant contends he provided reasonable explanations for 

the violations, and because he demonstrated his efforts to comply with the terms alleged as 

violations, the trial court should have modified or continued his community supervision. The 

State responds the trial court did not abuse its discretion by revoking appellant’s community 

supervision.

Appellant pleaded true to the allegations contained in the motions to revoke community 

supervision, and offered explanations why he failed to comply with the terms of his community 

supervision. A plea of true, standing alone, is sufficient to support revocation of community 

supervision. See Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979).

We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking appellant’s 

community supervision. We overrule appellant’s sole issue.
-3-

We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Do Not Publish

TEX. R. APP. P. 47

131475F.U05

/Michael J. O'Neill/

MICHAEL J. O'NEILL

JUSTICE
-4-

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT

GARY WAYNE SLUUS, Appellant 

No. 05-13-01475-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District 

Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 

F09-58153-W).

Opinion delivered by Justice O’Neill, 

Justices Moseley and FitzGerald 

participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered June 17, 2014.

/Michael J. O'Neill/

MICHAEL J. O'NEILL

JUSTICE
-5-

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT

GARY WAYNE SLUUS, Appellant 

No. 05-13-01476-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District 

Court of Dallas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 

F12-14466-W).

Opinion delivered by Justice O’Neill, 

Justices Moseley and FitzGerald 

participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered June 17, 2014.

/Michael J. O'Neill/

MICHAEL J. O'NEILL

JUSTICE