IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-14-00017-CR

CESAR MANAEN DOSKOCIL,

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 TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 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 supervision. 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 plea 
Doskocil 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 adjudication 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 imposed. 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 deferred 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 trial 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 to four of the nine violations alleged by the State.