### NUM BER 13-07- 397- CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## EDI NBURG

M EL IND A

GA RZ A , A pp ellan t,

v . TH E ST A

TE OF T EXA S, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 1 03rd D istrict Co urt of C amero n Co un ty , T exas


## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B ef o re J u st ic es R o d rig u ez , G ar za , a n d V el a M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ve la
Appel l a n t , M e l i n d a G a r z a , a p p e a l s fr o m t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s o r d e r r e v o k i n g h er communi ty

su per v is ion and sent enci ng her to fiv e y ear s’ co nfinement in t he Tex as De p a rt m e n t o f

Cr im in a l Ju s t ic e I n s t it u t io n a l Di vis io n (T DC J -I D)

. B y a s in gl e is s u e , G a rza
ass er ts that the t ri al cour t er re d w hen it r ev oked her co mmunity

su per v is ion bec ause the2

Stat e had filed a de fecti v e moti on to r ev oke. W e aff ir m. I. Back g ro und O n N o v ember

23, 2 0 0 5 , G a r z a p l e a d e d g u i l t y t o t h e o ffe n s e o f p o s s e s s i o n o f a cont ro ll ed s ubst ance w it h i ntent to del iv er , pur suant to a pl ea- bar g ain a gre ement. See T EX
. H E A L TH & S A F E T Y C OD E A NN . § 481 .11 2(a), (d) (Vernon 2 0 0 7 ). The trial court sent ence d he r to eight y ears’ incarcerat ion in the TDCJ-ID, but suspen ded the sen ten ce and pl aced her

on c ommunit y

su per v is ion for a per iod of eig ht y ear s. On A ug ust 29, 2006, the S tate filed a moti on to r ev oke pr obated sent ence, al leg ing that Gar z a v iol ated sev er al ter ms of her co mmunity

su per v is ion betw een J anuar

y 3, 2006 and Au g ust 25, 2006. F oll ow ing a hear ing on the moti on, the tr ial cour t ent er ed an or der modify ing Gar

z a’s co mmunity

su per v is ion

. This or der

r eq uir ed her

to se rve a ter m of confine ment and tr eatment in a subst ance abus e f elo ny punish ment faci li ty

( SAF PF) , but all ow ed her to re main on communi ty super v is ion unti l she coul d be pla ced in a S AFPF facil it y
. On J anuar

y 31, 2007, the S tate filed a s econd moti on ent it led Sta te’ s fir st amended moti on to r ev oke communi ty su per v is ion pr obated sent ence. Thi s mot ion al le ged new
v iol ati ons of the te rms of Gar z a’s co mmunity

su per v is ion that oc cur re d bet w een D ecember 14, 2 006 and Ja nuar

y 12, 2007. Gar z a di d not fil e a mot ion to q uash th e S ta te’ s s econd moti on bas ed on the g ro unds re li ed upon i n thi s appeal

. On Mar ch 22, 2007, the tri al cour t hel d a h ear ing on the St a te ’s second mot ion

. No obj ect ion to the S tate’ s s econd moti on w as made, an d Gar z a pl eaded t ru e to the v iol ati ons. After re cei v ing the ev ide nce, the tr ial co urt r ev oked Garza’s comm unity supervisi on a nd o rd e re d h er to serve a senten ce of f iv e y ears’ confine ment i n the TDC J- ID

. This appeal foll ow ed.3 II. D is cus si on By her so le is sue, Gar

za a ss e rts that the t ri al cour t er re d w hen i t r ev oked her communi ty

su p e rvisio n because the S tate had fil ed a defecti v e moti on to r ev oke. I n g ener al, a pr er eq uis it e to pr esent ing a c omplai nt for appel lat e r ev iew is a s how ing that the compl ain t w as made to the t ri al cour t by a t imel y r eq uest , obj ect ion or

moti on, a nd th at t he tr ial co urt ei ther

r ule d on or

r efused to r ule on t h e r eq uest , obj ect ion or moti on. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 3 3.1( a)

. Er ro rs in a moti on to re v oke communi ty super v is ion must be poi nted out to the tri al cour

t in a ti mely

moti on to q uash. Longor ia v. Stat e , 6 2 4 S

. W

. 2 d 5 8 2 , 5 8 4 (T e x. Cr im. App. 1981) ; Rod ri guez v. Sta te , 951 S.W .2d 1 99, 2 04 ( Tex . Ap p .–C or pus Chr is ti 1997, no pet.)

. Er ro r, i f any , i s w aiv ed abs ent s uch a moti on. Gor don v . St ate , 575 S.W .2d 529, 531 ( Tex . C ri m. App. [Pa nel Op. ] 197 8)

. And, ev en i f the moti on i s i n fact defecti v e, the q uest ion of the s uff ic ien cy of a moti on to r ev oke communi ty su per v is ion ca nnot be
ra is ed for th e fir st ti me on ap peal

. Rod ri guez , 951 S .W .2d a t 199

. Th is appe al is Garz a’s firs t at tempt to ra is e the suffici ency of t he St ate’ s s econd moti on to r ev oke. H ow ev er , s he faile d to file a moti on to q uash the S tate’ s s econd moti on to r ev oke. Ad dit ion all y , s he fail ed t o vo ic e a n y o b je c t io n s t o t h e S t a t e ’s m o t io n t o re vo k e d u ri n g t h e h e a ri n g. Co n s e qu e n t ly, Garz a has fail ed to pr eser v e the al leg ed er ro r for appe ll ate r ev iew

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 33. 1(a). Ev en if G ar z a had pr eser

v ed er ro r, the tr ial co urt pr oper ly ente re d i ts or der

of modific ati on. Gar

z a w oul d li ke us to be li ev e tha t bec ause the S tate’ s s econd moti on w as ti tl ed a “F ir st Amended M oti on to R ev oke” and becau se the t ri al cour t had al re ady

ente re d judgme nt on the f irst motio n, th e trial court imp rope rly ente re d j u d gm e nt on the St ate ’s
sec ond motion to rev oke. How ev er , the subst ance of a pl eadi ng dete rmi nes it s n atur e, no t merel y the form or ti tl e g iv en to it

. Sta te Ba r of Texas v. Heard , 6 0 3 S

. W

. 2 d 8 2 9 , 8 3 3 (T e x.4

1980) ; Speer v. Stov

er , 685 S.W .2d 2 2, 23 ( Tex . 198 5) ; Her nandez v. Sta te , 767 S.W .2d 902, 904 (Tex . App.–C or pus Chr is ti 1989) , a f f ’d , 800 S.W .2d 5 23 ( Tex . C ri m. App. 1990) (per curiam ). T he State ’s secon d mo tion in no w ay atte mp ted to chan ge, correct or rev ise the p ri or moti on to r ev oke that had bee n fil ed on Aug ust 29, 2006. Ins tead, al l of the all eg ed v iol ati ons li ste d i n the Ja nuar y 31, 2007 mot ion took

pl ace after the t ri al cour t had enter ed i ts or der of modi ficat ion for v iol ati ons ra is ed i n the Sta te’ s fir st moti on. Thus, the Sta te’s seco n d m o t io n to revoke w as prop erly bef ore the court, an d Garza’s position is wit h o u t m e ri t

. W e o ve rr u le t h e so le is s u e f o r r e vie w. The tr ial co ur t’ s j udg ment i s a ff ir med.

RO SE V ELA J u s t i c e
Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s 2 9th d ay

of Jul y , 200 8.