T he a l l egat i ons wer e t hat app el l ant f ai l ed t o no t i fyhi s pr obat i on o ff i cerof hi s ar r est f orposse ssi on 1 ofa cont r ol l ed subst ance, possessi on ofm ar i j uana, ev adi ng a r r est / det ent i on, and f ai l i ng t o r em ai n wi t hi n t he c o n fin e s o f P o tte r, R a n d a l l , a n d A rm s tro n g c o u n ti e s . NO. 07-08 -030 7-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B JU NE 10, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ AAR ON JA ME L LEW IS, Appel lan t

v. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 18 1 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF P OT T ERCOU NT Y; ST NO. 503 22-B; HON. JOHN BOARD, PRES IDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Memorandum Opinion

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Aaron J amel Lew is pl ed g uil ty i n 2005 to po ss ess ing a c ontroll ed s ubst a nce in a dr ug free z one and re cei v ed deferred adj udi cat ion per a pl ea barg ain , and was pla ced on probati on for four y ears. On June 24, 2 008, the cour t hea rd the Stat e’sse cond amended moti on to proceed w it h adj udi cat ion of g uil t. Appel lan t pl ed “ tr ue” to two of the all eg ati ons 1T he St at e wai v ed two oft he a l l egat i ons. 2 At t he t i m e ap pel l ant pl ed t r ue t o t wo oft he a l l egat i ons, t he cou rt a s k ed i f a ppel l ant had bee n 3 pr ev i ousl yi nf or m ed t hat t he r ange ofpuni shm ent fo ra second degr ee f el onywas t wo t o t went yy ear s and a fin e u p to $ 1 0 ,0 0 0
. See T EX . H E A L T H & S A F E T Y C OD E A NN . §481. 115( d) ( Ver non 2003)
. However , beca use t he o ff ense occur r ed i n a dr ug f r ee z one, t he m i ni m um pun i shm ent was i nc rea s ed b yf i v e y ear s and t he m a x i m u m fi n e w a s d o u b l e d . Id . § 4 8 1 .1 3 4 (c )( 1 ) (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 8 ). 2 and t he tr ial co urt found by a preponderance of the ev ide nce that the remaini ng al leg ati ons w ere tr ue. Thereafter, the cour t adj udi cat ed appe ll ant g uil ty and sent enced hi m to fifteen 2 y ears c onfinement. Ap pel lan t now arg ues in two is sues thathi s p lea was unkno w ing and i n v o l u n t a r

y b e c a u s e t h e c o u rti n fo r m e d h i m o f a n i n c o r re ctra n g e o f

p u n i s h m e n t . We 3 dis ag re e and aff ir m the jud g ment. It is unclea r from app ellant ’s brief wh e the r he is contest ing his ori ginal plea or his plea of true to two of

the allegatio ns in the m otion t o proce ed to ad judicat ion of g uilt. If it is the former , app ell ant was re q uired to rais e the matte r at t he tim e he was pla ced on deferred adj udi cat ion . W ebb v . St ate, 20 S.W .3d 834, 836 ( Tex . Ap p.–Amar il lo 2000, no pet.)
. W e w il l therefore no t c onsi der i t. As to t he l atter , t he tr ial co urt is not req uired to admoni sh appel lan t as to the puni shmentrang e at a probati on rev ocat ion proceed ing . Har ri s v . St ate, 505 S. W .2d 5 76, 578 ( Tex . Cr im. App. 1974)
. This rul e has been extended to i ncl ude pl eas of tru e ent ered in a proceed ing to adj udicate g uil t, as here. Ki nney v. State , N o. 04 -0 2- 0173- CR , 200 2 Tex . Ap p. L E X IS 7194 (Tex . App.–San Anton io October 9, 2002, no pet .) ( not d esi g nated for publ ic ati on) ; Hea rd

v. Sta te , No. 09- 00- 0532- CR , 2001 Tex . App. L E X IS 6887 (Tex . Ap p. –BeaumontOctober

10, 2001, no pet .) ( not d esi g nated for publ ic ati on)
. Howev er , ev en if the admoni shmentwas re q uired and appel lan t’ s p lea o f t ru e to thos e al leg ati ons w as involu ntar

y due to an i ncor re ct admoni shment , the tr ial cour t found appel lan t had v iol ated3

other ter ms and co ndi ti ons of his co mmunity su per v is ion to w hic h he did not pl e ad tr ue. Tho s e v i ol at i on s i nc l ud ed fl ee i ng from a p ea c e offi c er a tt em pt i ng t o ar res t or d et ai n hi m, smok ing mar ij uana, v olu ntar il y rem a in ing at a resi dence w here a c ri minal act was bei ng c om mi tt ed , an d fai l i ng t o rem ai n at hi s p l ac e of res i de nc e be twee n th e ho urs o f 11 :0 0 p. m. and 6: 00 a. m. Appel lan t does no t c hal len g e tho se findi ng s o n appea l, and a findi ng of tr ue w it h respect t o any

one of those all eg ati ons w as suffici ent t o s ust a in the re v ocat ion of appel lan t’ s c ommunity

su per v is ion . Atchis on v

. St ate , 124 S.W .3d 755, 75 8- 59 ( Tex . Ap p. –Aus ti n 2003, pet. ref’d)
. Acc ordin g ly , we ov er ru le appel lan t’ s i ss ues and affirm the j udg ment.
Br ian Qui nn Chief Justice
Do not p ubl is h.