Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-15-00150-CR

Billy BENAVIDEZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 229th Judicial District Court, Duval County, Texas

Trial Court No. 09-CRD-122

Honorable J. Manuel Banales, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: December 7, 2016

AFFIRMED

Billy Benavidez appeals the trial court’s judgment revoking his deferred adjudication 

community supervision, adjudicating him guilty of Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon, 

and sentencing him to ten years’ imprisonment. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

ANALYSIS

On May 26, 2010, Benavidez pled guilty to Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon 

under Count II of a three-count indictment. Count III of the indictment alleged that Benavidez had 

a prior felony conviction. The State dismissed Count I, which alleged Driving While Intoxicated 
04-15-00150-CR

- 2 -

with a Child Younger than 15 Years. The trial court placed Benavidez on deferred adjudication 

community supervision for a period of seven years.

On October 29, 2013, the State filed a motion to adjudicate guilt alleging that Benavidez 

had violated multiple conditions of his community supervision, including, but not limited to: 

commission of a new offense, Driving While Intoxicated-3rd or More, on October 13, 2013 in 

Nueces County; failure to avoid alcohol; failure to remain in Duval County; failure to abide by his 

curfew; failure to pay court costs; failure to pay the $1,500 fine; failure to pay restitution and other 

fees; failure to begin and complete out-patient counseling; and failure to begin and complete 140 

hours of community service. At the hearing on the State’s motion, Benavidez pled true to all of 

the alleged violations, both verbally and in a written “Plea of True to State’s Motion to Adjudicate 

Guilt.” The trial court confirmed Benavidez’s knowledge and understanding of the alleged 

violations, and the consequences of a plea of true, before accepting his plea and finding that he 

committed each of the alleged violations. The court revoked Benavidez’s deferred adjudication 

community supervision, and proceeded to adjudicate him guilty of the underlying offense of 

Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon. The trial court then proceeded to the punishment 

phase, at which no new evidence was submitted, and sentenced Benavidez to ten years’ 

imprisonment.

On appeal, Benavidez asserts the State failed to submit evidence to corroborate his plea of 

true to commission of the October 13, 2013 DWI-3rd or More offense alleged in the State’s motion 

to adjudicate/revoke. He contends that his “judicial confession” to commission of that offense was 

insufficient unless independent corroborating evidence was presented to establish the corpus 

delicti. See Miller v. State, 457 S.W.3d 919, 924 (Tex. Crim. App. 2015) (quoting Hacker v. State, 

389 S.W.3d 860, 866 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013)) (“To satisfy the corpus delicti rule, there must be 
04-15-00150-CR

- 3 -

‘evidence independent of a defendant’s extrajudicial confession show[ing] that the ‘essential 

nature’ of the charged crime was committed by someone.’”). Benavidez asserts that because the 

State’s motion only alleged he was “arrested and charged” with the new offense, there was no 

evidence the new DWI-3rd or More offense was actually committed.1 Even if Benavidez’s 

premise were true with respect to the violation based on commission of the new offense, the trial 

court found that Benavidez committed multiple other violations of the conditions of his community 

supervision such as failure to pay his fine, court costs, restitution and other fees, and failure to 

perform counseling and community service hours. One violation of a condition of community 

supervision is sufficient to support a revocation. Watts v. State, 645 S.W.2d 461, 463 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1983); Lewis v. State, 195 S.W.3d 205, 209 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2006, no pet.). 

Benavidez’s argument on appeal is limited to the violation based on the new DWI-3rd or More 

offense; he does not challenge any of the other violations found by the trial court. We therefore 

overrule Benavidez’s sole issue and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH

 1 Benavidez also argues he was harmed by the trial court’s consideration of the new DWI-3rd or More offense because 

it was the “primary reason” for imposition of the ten-year sentence instead of the four-year sentence recommended by 

the State. The transcript of the hearing shows the trial court was indeed concerned with Benavidez’s history of driving 

while intoxicated. However, the court focused on Benavidez’s three prior convictions for DWI, to which Benavidez 

testified, not the pending DWI-3rd or More offense, before rejecting Benavidez’s request to continue on community 

supervision and imposing the ten-year sentence.