1 ... S eeTe x. R. App . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OFAPPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO . 2- 08-402- CR
R I CA R DO MAR T E L LE S P I NOZ A AP P E L L ANT V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S STA TE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 372ND DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### MEMORANDU M OPI NI ON 1

----- ----- -- R i car do M art el l Espi noza appeal s f r om hi s adj udi cat i on f oraggr avat ed a s s a u l t w i th a d e a d l yw e a p o n . In o n e p o i n t, h e a rg u e sth a t th e tri a l c o u rt a b u s e d i ts d i s c re ti o n b yp ro c e e d i n g to a d j u d i c a ti o n . W e a ffir m . Back gr ound A ppe l l ant pl ea ded gui l t y t o agg r ava t ed as sa ul t w i t h a dea dl y w ea pon. Pur su antt o a pl ea bar gai n, t he t r i alco urtpl ac ed hi m on d ef er r ed adj udi ca t i on c om m un i t y s up e rvi s i on f ore i gh ty e a r sb e gi nn i ng Se pt e m be r8, 2006 .2

O n M ay 16, 2008 , t he St at e f i l ed a pet i t i on t o pr oce ed t o a dj udi ca t i on, al l egi ng Appel l antha d vi ol at ed t he t er m s ofhi s com m uni t y s upe rvi si on by f a i l i ng t o r e po rtt o hi ss up e rvi s i on o f f i c e r f r om Apr i l 2007 t hr ou gh M a r c h 2008; l ea vi ng Tar r antCount y w i t hout t he per m i ss i on ofhi s su pervi si on of f i ce r ; f ai l i ng t o pa y c os t s, f ee s, an d f i nesasor der ed; an d f ai l i ng t o a tt end an ger - con t r ol cl as se s. The St at e l at er w ai ved t he cos t s, f i nes , and f ee s al l ega t i on , an d A ppel l antpl eaded “t r ue” t o t he ot heral l eged vi ol at i ons. A tt h e a d ju d ic a t io n h e a r in g , A p p e l l a n tt e s t if ie d t h a th e c u to f fh isa n k le
m oni t oran d f l ed t o El Paso t o vi si thi s dyi ng f at heri n M ar ch 200 7. Al t hough he r et ur ned t o hi s hom e i n D al l as a f ew days aft erhi s f at her ’ s f uner al on M ay 2, 20 07 , he neveragai n r eport ed t o hi s supervi si on off i cer , and D al l as pol i ce eve nt ual l y a r r es t ed hi m i n M ay 200 8. A ppe l l ants ai d hedi d notco m pl et e t he ang er - con t r ol cl as s bec aus e h e c oul d notaf f or d t o do so . The t r i alco urtpr oceed ed to adj udi ca t i on, f ound A ppe l l antgui l t y of a g g ra v a te d a s s a u ltw it h a d e a d l yw e a p o n , a n d s e n te n c e d h i m to p ri s o n fo r a t er m oft en yea r s and oneda y. D i sc us si on W e r evi ew a tr i al c ourt ’ s dec i si on t o pr oce ed t o a dj udi ca t i on un dert he sa m e sta n d a rd w e ap p l yw h e n rev i e w i n g a r e v o c a ti o n o f co m m u n i ty s u p e rv i s i o n . S eeTex. C odeC r i m . Pr oc. A nn. art . 42. 12, § 5( b) ( V er non Supp .3

200 8) ( “Thi s det er m i nat i on i s r ev i ew abl e i n t he sa m e m ann erasa r evo ca t i on hear i ng con ducted underSecti on 2 1 o ft hi s art i cl e i n a c a se i n w hi ch an adj udi ca t i on o fgui l tha d notbe en def er r ed. ”) . W e r evi ew an or derr evo ki ng c o m m u n i tys u p e rv i s i o n u n d e r a n a b u s e o f d i s c re ti o n s ta n d a rd . Cardonav. S tate , 6 6 5 S .W .2 d 4 9 2 , 4 9 3 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 8 4 ); Ja ckso nv. S tate , 645 S .W .2 d 3 0 3 , 3 0 5 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 8 3 ); Ch erryv. S tate , 215 S . W . 3d 917, 919 ( Tex. A pp. — FortW ort h 2007, pe t . r ef ’ d) . I n a r evo ca t i on pr oce edi ng, t he St at e m us t pr ove by a pr epo nde r anc e of t he evi den ce t hat t he de f end ant
v i o l a te d th e te rm sa n d c o n d it io n s o f c o m m u n i tys u p e rv i s i o n . Co b bv. S tate , 8 5 1 S .W .2 d 8 7 1 , 8 7 3 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 3 ); Ch erry , 215 S. W . 3d a t919. A si n g l e v i o l a ti o n o f t h e term s o f co m m u n i ty s u p e rvi sion w i l l su p p o rta r ev oc ati on ord e r. O 'Nea l v. S tate , 623 S . W . 2d 660, 661 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 1 9 8 1 ). Ap l e a o f tru e to a n ya l l e g e d v i o l a ti o n iss u fficie n t to s a ti s fyth e S ta te ’s b u rd e n a sto th a t a l l e g a ti o n . S e eWa tts v. S tate , 645 S. W . 2d 461 , 463 ( Tex. C ri m . A p p . 1 9 8 3 ); Co lev. S tate , 578 S . W . 2d 127, 128 ( Tex. Cr i m . A pp. 1 9 7 9 ). H e r e , a p le a o f“ t r u e ” t o a n yo n e o ft h e t h r e e a lle g e d v io la t io n sw o u ld h a v e su p p o rt e d the ex e rci se o f t h e tr i a l co u rt ’s d i sc reti o n to p roc e e d to adj udi cat i on; A ppel l antpl eaded “t r ue” t o al l t hr ee. A ppel l antar gues t hat“j ust because a vi ol at i on of com m uni t y super vi si on . . . i s show n does not m ean t hat4

t he [ c] ourtha s no c hoi cebutt o r evo kesupe rvi si on and i m pos e a sen t enc e o f i n c a rce rati o n .” T h i s a rgu m e n t i s v a l i d ; b u t w h i l e the tr i a l c o u rt w a s n o t requi red t o adj udi cat e A ppel l ant , i tcert ai nl y had t he di scr et i on t o do so. A ppel l antal so ar gue s t hatt he t r i alco urtab us ed i t s di scre t i on bypr oce edi ng t o a dj udi ca t i on bec aus e “ ot hert han t he [ p] r os ec ut or , no o ne w ant ed t he A ppe l l ant i ncar cer at ed[ , ] i ncl udi ng t he com pl ai nant i n t hese cases. ” Butagai n, once A ppe l l antpl ea ded “ t r ue”t o oneof t he al l ege d vi ol at i ons , t he t r i alco urtha d t he di sc r et i on t o r evo kehi s co m m un i t y s upe rvi si on, pr oce ed t o a dj udi ca t i on, an d se nt enc e Appel l antt o a t er m ofconf i nem ent . The des i r esofA ppe l l antan d t he com pl ai nan tdo n ott ak e t he ca sebe yond t he bound s ofdi sc r et i on. A p p e l l a n t al so co m p l a i n s, i n p a ss i n g , th a t t h e tr i a l co u rtab u s e d i ts di sc r et i on bys ent enc i ng hi m t o c onf i nem entf ort en yea r s and a day . But A ppe l l antf ai l ed t o pr es erve t hi s i ss ue f orr evi ew . He di d notobj ec tw hen t he tri a l c o u rt p ro n o u n c e d h i ss e n te n c e . S ee T e x . R . A p p . P . 3 3 .1 (a )(1 ); Merca do
v. S tate , 71 8 S . W . 2d 29 1, 29 6 ( Tex . C r i m . A pp. 19 86 ) ( “A s a gener al r ul e, an a p p e l l a n t m a y n o t a s s e rt e rro r p e rta i n i n g to h i ss e n te n c e o r p u n i s h m e n t w h e re he f ai l ed t o obj ec torot her w i ser ai ses uch er r ori n t he t r i alco urt . ”) . Al t hough A ppel l a nt f i l e d a t i m e l y m ot i on f or ne w t r i a l c ha l l e ng i ng t he s e nt ence as exc es si ve and di sp r op ort i ona l , not hi ng i n t he r ec or d s ugge st s t hathe

“ p re s e n te d ” th e m o ti o n to th e tri a l c o u rt. S ee T e x . R . A p p . P . 2 1 .6 ; Carranza5

v. S tate , 9 6 0 S .W .2 d 7 6 , 7 8

– 7 9 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 8 ); Re yes v. S tate , 849 S .W .2 d 8 1 2 , 8 1 5 (T e x . C ri m . A p p . 1 9 9 3 ); A m a ro v. S tate , 970 S. W . 2d 172, 17 4 ( Tex . A pp. — FortW ort h 1 99 8, no pet . ) . Even i f A ppel l anthad pr eserved t hi s i ssue f orr evi ew , hi s sent ence i s w i t hi n t he r ange ofpuni shm entaut hor i zed b ythe l e g i slatu re, an d A p p e l l a n t do e s n o t ex p l a i n h o w the tr i a l co u rtab u se d i ts d i s c re ti o n b yi m p o s i n g th e te n -y e a r, o n e -d a ys e n te n c e . S eeTex. Pen alCode A n n . § 1 2 .3 3 (a) (V e rno n S u p p . 2 0 0 8 ) (pro v i d i n g ran g e o f pu n i sh m e n t of tw o to tw e n tyy e a rs ’ c o n fi n e m e n t fo r s e c o n d -d e g re e fe l o n y ); D a rden v. S tate , 430 S . W . 2d 49 4, 49 6 ( Tex . C r i m . A pp. 19 68 ) ( “I fthe p uni shm enti s w i t hi n t hat pr es cr i bed by t he st at ut e, i ti s bey ond t he pr ovi nceoft hi s C ourtt o pa ssupon th e q u e s ti o n o f e x c e s s i v e p u n i s h m e n t.” ). Fi ndi ng no ab us e o fdi sc r et i on, w e o ver r ul e Appel l ant ’ s so l e po i ntan d a ffi rm the tr i a l co u rt ’s j u d g m e n t. P E R CU R I AM PA N EL: G A RD N ER, J. ; CA YC E, C. J. ; an d L I V I N G STO N , J. DO NO T P UBLI SH Tex. R. A pp. P. 47. 2( b) DEL I VERE D: J ul y 2, 2009