Opinion filed June 9, 2011



## In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

__________ 

### No. 11

- 09

- 00 352

- CR

__________ ELIJAH D e QUINCY JOSEPH , Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 142 nd District Court

Midland C ounty, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CR30056

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Elijah DeQuincy Joseph appeals the judgment of the trial court revoking his community supervision. We affirm. The trial court originally convicted appellant of a second degree felony offense of robbery and assessed his punishment at ten years confinement and a $1,400 fine. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 29.02 (Vernon 2011). However, the trial court suspended the imp osition of the sentence and placed appellant on community supervision for a period of ten years. The State2

filed a motion to revoke appellant’s community supervision. At the hearing on the motion to revoke, appellant entered pleas of true to three of the allegations that he had violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision. The trial court found those three allegations and an additional allegation to be true, revoked appellant’s community supervision, and imposed a
sentence of confinemen t for seven years and payment of the unpaid balance of the previously
assessed fine. Appellant presents two issues for review. In his first issue, he contends that the trial court violated his constitutional rights by revoking his community supervision. In his second issue, he
contends that the trial court improperly rendered his punishment and imposed an excessive

sentence. We review a trial court’s judgment revoking community supervision under an abuse of
discretion standard. Rickels v. State , 202 S. W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Cardona v.
State , 665 S.W.2d 492, 493 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). At a revocation hearing, the State bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a condition of community supervision
has been violat ed. Rickels , 202 S.W.3d at 763

- 64; Cobb v. State , 851 S.W.2d 871, 874 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Proof of one violation is sufficient to support a revocation. McDonald v.
State , 608 S.W.2d 192, 200 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980); Taylor v. State , 604 S.W.2d 175, 1 80 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980); Leach v. State , 170 S.W.3d 669, 672 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2005, pet

. ref’d). A plea of true alone is sufficient to support the trial court’s determination to revoke.
Moses v. State , 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979); Cole v. State , 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979); Hays v. State , 933 S.W.2d 659, 661 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1996, no pet.). When a plea of true is made, the sufficiency of the evidence to support the revocation may not be challenged. Cole , 578 S .W.2d at 128; Hays , 933 S.W.2d at 661. Appellant pleaded true to three allegations that he had violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision. His “true” pleas were sufficient to support the trial court’s revocation of his community super vision. Moses , 590 S.W.2d at 470; Cole , 578 S.W.2d at 128; Hays , 933 S.W.2d at 661. Appellant has failed to establish that the trial court abused its discretion or violated his constitutional rights by revoking his community supervision. Appellant’s fir st issue is overruled. In his second issue, appellant argues that his punishment was improperly rendered and
excessive. Appellant did not object to the sentence in the trial court. That failure to object to the3

alleged excessive sentence waived any erro r. Wynn v. State , 219 S.W.3d 54, 61 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.); Solis v. State , 945 S.W.2d 300, 301 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 1997, pet

. ref’d). Additionally, we note that the trial court assessed punishment within the range autho rized by the legislature for a second degree felony. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 12.33 (Vernon 2011). Generally , a penalty assessed within the range of punishment established by the legislature will not be disturbed on appeal. Jackson v. State , 680 S.W.2d 809, 814 (Tex. Crim. App

. 1984) ; Flores v. State , 936 S.W.2d 478, 478

- 79 (Tex. App.

— Eastland 1996, pet

. ref’d). Appellan t’s second issue is overruled. The judgment o f the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

June 9, 2011 Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b).
Panel 1 consists of: Wright, C.J., McCall, J., and Hill , J. 2

1 Rick Strange, Justice, resigned effective April 17, 2011. The justice position is vacant pending appointment of a successor by the governor.

2 John G. Hill, Former Justice, Court of Appeals, 2nd District of Texas at Fort Worth, sitting by assignment.