Opinion filed June 10, 2010

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

__________

No. 11-08-00299-CR

__________

CHRISTOPHER LEE GOSWICK, Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 104th District Court

Taylor County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 16215B

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Christopher Lee Goswick was convicted of bodily injury to a child and was sentenced to

seven years confinement, probated for seven years and a $1,000 fine. The State filed a motion to 

revoke, alleging seven violations of the terms of his community supervision. The trial court 

found that six of the allegations were true, and it revoked Goswick’s community supervision and 

sentenced him to seven years confinement. We affirm.

I. Background Facts

Goswick pleaded not true to the State’s allegations that he had been convicted of public 

intoxication, that he had failed to abstain from alcohol, and that he had failed to pay a monthly 
2

fee to cover his court-appointed attorney’s fees. Goswick pleaded ―[t]rue with an explanation‖ 

to the State’s allegations that he had tested positive for marihuana, that he had failed to notify his 

supervising officer within forty-eight hours of a new arrest, that he had failed to pay a $40 

supervisor fee, and that he had failed to make a monthly payment for court costs and fees.

The State called Betty Almaguer, a community supervision officer. She testified that 

Goswick was arrested for public intoxication and that he entered a guilty plea the following day. 

She also testified that Goswick was in arrears on his monthly payments. Goswick testified in his 

own defense. He claimed that the public intoxication arrest was a mistake because he had had a 

seizure and the police officer mistook his condition for intoxication. He explained that the 

positive marihuana test was the result of marihuana he smoked prior to being placed on 

community supervision. He also testified that he had paid his fees while employed but that he 

lost his full-time job because of his seizure disorder.

II. Issues

Goswick presents three issues to challenge the revocation of his community supervision. 

First, he argues that the trial court erred by not admonishing him of the effects of a plea of true in 

a community supervision revocation hearing. In his second issue, he asserts that the trial court 

had insufficient evidence to find the State’s allegations to be true. Finally, Goswick argues that 

his counsel provided ineffective assistance.

III. Admonishment

Goswick contends that his due process rights were violated because the trial court failed 

to admonish him as to the effect of his pleas of ―[t]rue with an explanation.‖ Goswick claims

that it is apparent from the record that he did not understand how his pleas would be construed 

and that this misunderstanding denied him due process.

Trial courts are statutorily required to admonish a defendant of the consequences of 

entering a plea of guilty prior to accepting the plea. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 26.13

(Vernon Supp. 2009). However, Article 26.13 does not apply to revocation proceedings, and the 

trial court is not required to admonish the defendant as to the consequences of his plea of true. 

See Harris v. State, 505 S.W.2d 576, 578 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Lanum v. State, 952 S.W.2d 

36, 39 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.). Goswick acknowledges this but contends that 

the trial court was still required to ensure that any waiver of rights was voluntarily, knowingly, 

and intelligently done. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 1.05 (Vernon 2005). The trial 
3

court complied with Article 1.05. It admonished Goswick of his right not to testify, and it 

confirmed that he understood the proceedings and potential consequences.

Moreover, Goswick has shown no harm. There is no indication in the record that the trial 

court revoked his community supervision based upon his plea. Goswick was allowed to fully 

explain his response to the State’s allegations, and there is ample evidence without regard to his 

plea to support the trial court’s judgment. Issue One is overruled.

IV. Sufficiency of the Evidence

Goswick also alleges that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his community 

supervision because the trial court did not have sufficient evidence to determine that Goswick 

violated a condition of his community supervision. Goswick’s argument presupposes that the 

trial court could not rely upon his qualified pleas of true; without these pleas, Goswick concludes 

that the trial court could not revoke his probation.

We review a trial court’s order revoking probation under an abuse of discretion standard. 

See Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). The State is required to 

prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of his 

community supervision. A single violation is sufficient to support a revocation. O’Neal v. State, 

623 S.W.2d 660, 661 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). We view the evidence in the light most favorable 

to the trial court’s ruling. Garrett v. State, 619 S.W.2d 172, 174 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981).

Almaguer, Goswick’s current supervision officer, testified that her records indicated that 

Goswick had been arrested for, and pleaded guilty to, public intoxication. She also testified that 

Goswick was delinquent in his monthly payments. Goswick denied drinking prior to his arrest. 

He claimed that he entered a guilty plea on the advice of his bondsman. Goswick explained that 

he suffered from seizures as the result of a prior accident involving alcohol, that a seizure had 

caused him to be confused, and that the arresting officer mistook this for inebriation. He 

explained that he was behind in his payments because he was currently unemployed. Goswick 

admitted that he tested positive for marihuana but claimed that this was because of marihuana he 

smoked prior to being placed on community supervision. Goswick was placed on community 

supervision on November 1, 2007. He tested positive on December 21, 2007.

The court was free to find Almaguer’s testimony more credible than Goswick’s and to 

reject his explanations. If so, that testimony is sufficient to support the trial court’s judgment

even without any reference to Goswick’s plea. Issue Two is overruled.
4

V. Ineffective Assistance

Goswick’s final argument is that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by 

leading him to enter qualified pleas of true. To determine whether counsel rendered ineffective 

assistance, we must first determine whether Goswick has shown that counsel’s representation fell 

below an objective standard of reasonableness and, if so, whether there is a reasonable 

probability that the result would have been different but for counsel’s errors. Strickland v. 

Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). When counsel has not had an opportunity to explain his 

actions, we must presume that the challenged action might be part of an overall strategic plan. 

Thompson v. State, 9 S.W.3d 808, 812-13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). Normally, the record on 

direct appeal will be insufficient to overcome this presumption – for Goswick must establish that 

counsel’s performance would have been unacceptable regardless of any trial strategy. Id. at 814. 

We do not have a sufficiently developed record to hold that counsel’s performance was 

deficient. There is nothing in the record establishing that counsel actually advised Goswick to 

plead true with explanations or that counsel did not explain to Goswick the ramifications of such 

a pleading. Without this evidence, Goswick cannot overcome the presumption that his counsel 

performed competently. Furthermore, Goswick cannot meet the second prong of Strickland 

because the outcome would have been the same even if the trial court had disregarded all of 

Goswick’s pleas of true. Goswick’s third issue is overruled.

VI. Conclusion

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

RICK STRANGE

JUSTICE

June 10, 2010

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Strange, J.