## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07

- 16

- 00255

- CR

DEWAYNE DESHAE WILLI S , APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , APPELLEE On Appeal from the 121st District Court Terry County , Texas Trial Court No. 6553 , Honorable Kelly Moore , Presiding



### December 28, 2016 MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before QUINN , C.J. , and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE , JJ. Appellant , Dewayne Deshae Willis , through a single issue , appeals the revocation of his probation for Class A misdemeanor theft. We affirm. Background The State moved to revoke a ppellant ’ s probation on eleven grounds

. When asked how he pled to the allegations , appellant answered true to ten of those ele ven gr ounds , but not true to the allegation expressed in paragraph A

. An evidentiary hearing ensued during which the State presented evidence of a criminal trespass2

committed by appellant. The latter objected because it was “ not one of the allegations in this revocation. ” Furthermore , “ any testimony regarding any potential violation of a previous criminal trespass order is a criminal violation for which I was not given notice. ” In response , the trial court said: Well , unless you want to bifurcate the hearing

- - you know , if we bifurcate the hearing , then once I make determinations if there ’ s been a violation , then I ’ m going to hear evidence of anything relevant on punishment. And so I guess what I ’ m going to do since you ’ ve enter ed a plea of true , I ’ m going to overrule the objection and allow the testimony , and I ’ ll consider it on my punishment. 1
The motion to revoke was ultimately granted . The trial court found the allegatio ns in the motion to be “ true ” “

. . . based upon your plea and the evidence presented

. . . . ” So too did it revoke his probation and sentence him to 11 months in the county jail

. Extraneous offense Through his sole issue , appellant asserts that the trial court denied him “ due
process

. ” That is , the State allegedly was obligated to notify him of its intent to use the evidence of criminal trespass as a ground for revoking probation. Assuming arguendo that the “ due process ” complaint was preserved since the constitutional right was n ever mentioned in the objection at trial , we nonetheless overrule the issue. Revocation proceedings are unitary in nature. Parker v. State , No. 05

- 13

- 01535

- CR , 2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 13838 , at *5

- 6 (Tex. App.

— Dallas December 29 , 2014 , no pet. ) (not designated for publica tion)

. In such proceedings “ as in a punishment hearing , the parties may offer any evidence the court deems relevant to sentencing , including unadjudicated extraneous offen ses and previous bad acts attributable to the defendant

. ” Id. The trial court at bar knew that , as evinced by its explanation for overruling the

1 Appellant did not request a bifurcated hearing.3

objection. So too did it reveal that the evidence at issue would be considered for purposes of “ punishment ,” which it had the authority to do. And , appellant fails to argue that he was entit led to some prior notice of its use for that purpose as a condition to it being admitted. Nor did he cite us to anything of record illustrating that the State offered the evidence as an alternative basis upon which to revoke his probation; indeed , it was not needed given the plea of tru e to ten other allegations. Accordingly , w e affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Brian Quinn Chief Justice

Do not publish.