### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 14

- 00017

- CR

CESAR MANAEN DOSKOCI L , Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 18th District Court Johnson County, Texas Trial Court No. F41951

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In 2008, Cesar Manaen Doskocil pled guilty to three counts of aggravated sexual

assault of a child and was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision for a
period of 10 years. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN . § 22.021(a)(2)(B) (West Supp. 2013). The
State filed an amended motion to adjudicate Doskocil in 2013, alleging nine violations of
his community supe rvision. Doskocil pled true to four of those violations, and after a
contested hearing, the trial court revoked Doskocil’s deferred adjudication community
supervision. Because Doskocil cannot now raise an issue relating to the underlying pleaDoskocil v. State Page 2

proceeding and because Doskocil pled true to four alleged violations of his community
supervision, the trial court’s judgment is affirmed.
Doskocil first complains that the trial court did not admonish him regarding the
consequences of being placed on deferred adjudi cation when Doskocil originally pled
guilty. A defendant placed on deferred adjudication community supervision may raise
issues relating to the original plea proceeding only in appeals taken when deferred
adjudication community supervision is first impose d. Manuel v. State , 994 S.W.2d 658,

661

- 662 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). See also Perez v. State , 424 S.W.3d 81, 85 (Tex. Crim.
App. 2014) (court costs); Wiley v. State , 410 S.W.3d 313, 318 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013)
(attorney’s fees). Doskocil was placed on def erred adjudication community supervision
on March 7, 2008. He did not appeal. 1 Accordingly, Doskocil may not now raise an
issue regarding the original plea proceeding in this appeal, and his first issue is

overruled.
Doskocil next complains about the tri al court’s finding of true to each violation of
deferred adjudication community supervision alleged by the State. Doskocil pled true
to four of the State’s nine alleged violations of community supervision. An appellant's
plea of true, standing alone, is sufficient to support the revocation of community

1 Further, he waived his right to appeal; and, because he pled guilty, the trial court certified that Doskocil had no right to appeal.Doskocil v. State Page 3

supervision. Cole v. State , 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). Accordingly,
Doskocil’s issues two through ten are overruled. 2
Having overruled each issue on appeal, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

TOM GRAY Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Affirmed Opinion delivered and filed July 24, 2014 Do not publish [CRPM]

2 In each of these issues, Doskocil also asserts that the State was proceeding only on Count 1 of the underlying judgment and, therefore, the trial court erred in revoking Doskocil’s community supervision as to Counts 3 and 4. Doskocil’s assertion is without merit. The record indicates that the State’s amended motion to proceed indicates that revocation is being pursued in “CAUSE NO. F41951 COUNTS 1, 3, 4.” Further, immediately prior to the hearing on the State’s amended motion to revoke, the State made it clear to Doskocil’s counsel that the motion covered Counts 1, 3, and 4. After the clarification, Doskocil pled true t o four of the nine violations alleged by the State.