AFFIRM; and Opinion Filed June 17, 2014.

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 1 3
- 0 1475
- CR No. 05
- 13
- 01476
- CR
GARY WAYN E SLUUS , Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial Distri ct Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F 09
- 58153
- W, F12
- 14466
- W 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Moseley, O’Neill, and FitzGerald Opinion b y Justice O’Neill Gary Wayne Sluus appeals the revocation of his community supervision in these case s . 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

. A ppellant waived a jury and pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine in an amount less than one gram and felony DWI

. See T EX
. H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN
. § 481.112(a), (b) (West 2010); T EX
. P ENAL C ODE A NN
. § § 49.04(a), 49.09(b)(2) (West Supp.
2013 ). Pursuant to plea agreement s , the trial court assessed punishment at ten years’- 2

- imprisonment, probat ed for five years, and a $2,000 fine. The State later moved to revoke community supervision, alleging appellant violated th re e terms of his community supervision , including that appellant failed to submit a non

- dilute random urine sample , failed to repor t 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 prov ided 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 no t 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
super vision. 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 appellan t’s community supervision. We overrule appellant’s sole issue.- 3

- We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Do Not Publish T EX
. R. A PP
. 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, J ustices 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 Justic e 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