Opinion filed May 7, 2009



### In The 

# Eleven th Court of Appeals

____________ 

### No. 1 1- 07 -0 03 22 -CR

____ ____ __ AN DR ES GU TIER REZ , III, Ap pellant

V.
STA TE OF TEX AS , A ppellee

On App eal from the 132nd District Court

Scurry County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 8758

O P I N I O N Th is i s an a

pp e a l f ro m a jud g me nt r e vo kin g c omm un ity su pe rv isi on . We a ff

ir m. Procedural Bac kground Upon a plea

of g uilty , the trial cour

t convicted Andr es Gutierr ez, I I I of forg ery and asse ssed his punishment at confinement for two y ear s in a state jail fa cility and a $500 fine. Pursuant to the plea ba rg ain ag ree ment, the trial cour t suspe nded the imposit ion of the confine ment portion of the

se nte nc e and

pla c e d a pp e lla nt o n c omm

un ity su pe rv isi on fo r f ive y e ars
. Appellant wa s place d on community supervision on Novembe r 20, 2003. On Dece mber 4, 2003, the State filed its first motion to revoke allegi n g t h at appellant ha d violated the ter ms and conditions of his community supervision on Novembe r 26, 2003, by committing the off

enses of2

public intox ication and resisting a rre st and by

failing to remain at his residence as orde red. O n J anuar y 5, 2004, the trial court modified the te rms of appe llant’s community supervision to require that appellant be place d on the Scurry County Communi ty

Supervision and Corre ctions Depa rtment Com munit y Se rv ic e Wor k Pr og ra m f or fo ur te e n d ay s a

nd that he sta

y in t he Sc ur ry County Jail duri nghis no n- wo rk

pr og ra m ho ur s f or the same fo ur

te e n d ay s. On Fe bruar

y 18, 2004, the State filed its sec ond motion to revoke alleg ing that on Fe bruar y 1, 20 04 , a pp e lla nt h a d c omm itt e d th e off e ns e of pu bli c int oxic a tio n a

nd that a pp e lla nt h a d f a ile d to repor t as order ed, fa iled as ordered to repor t that he had moved, failed to remain at his residence as order ed, and f

ailed to appear at a performa nce review as ordered. O n Marc h 4, 2004, the trial cour t modified the terms a

nd conditions of appellant’s community supervision to require that, in lieu of incar cer ation, appellant p articipate in the Cany on Reef T reatment Alternatives to Incar cer ation Pr og ra m. Ap pe lla

nt wa s ord e re d to e nte r a

re sid e nti a l in te ns ive tr e a tme nt p ro g ra m un til su c c e ssf

ull y discharg ed and the n to co n t i n u e treatment in an outpatient prog ram until succe ssfully discharg ed. On Octobe r 26, 2004, the t rial court ag ain amended t he terms and conditions of appe llant’s community

supervision. The amendments provided that a ppellant would be c ommi t ted to the Midland Court Residential Treatment Center fo r a te rm of up to twenty -four months and that he

wo uld re ma in i nc arc e rate d in

the Scurr y

County Jail duri nghis no n- wo rk ho ur s a nd c on tin ue to pa rt ic ipate in the Sc ur

ry County Com mun ity

Sup e rv isi on

and Cor re c tio ns De pa

rtme nt C omm

un ity Service Restituti on Prog ram until he wa s acc epted by the Midland C o u rt Residential Treatment Center. On O c to b e r

1 3 , 2 0 0 5 , th e tr ia l c o u rt m o d if ie d th e te r ms an d c o n d it io n s o f

appellant’ s community

supervision. This order

provided that appellant would immediately be admitted to the Scurry County J ail and the S cu rr y County Communi ty

Supervision and Corre ctions Depa rtment Com mun ity Se rv ic e Wor

k Pro g ra m and wo uld re ma in i n c us tod

y un til tr ans po rt a tio n to a

state ja il fac ility was a rra ng ed. Appe llant was also o rd er ed t o s er ve 120 day s in a state jail fa cility . Upon rele ase f rom the stat e jail fa cility , appellant wa s order ed to re port to the Scurry County Probation Depa rtment at 8:00 a.m. on the fir st working day afte r his rele ase. On J an u ar y 3 0, 2007, the State filed its final motion to revoke. The State alleg ed that

a pp e lla nt fail e d to re po rt

a s o rd e re d f

ro m N ov e mbe r 2 00 6 thro ug h Jan ua ry 20 07 ; th a t he fa ile d to3

make his c ourt -o rd e re d p ay me nts fr om Ma

rc h 20 06 thr ou g h Janu ary 20 07 ; that he fa ile d to pa y his probation fe e as order ed for Marc h 2006, from May 2006 throug h J uly

2006, and fr om September 2006 throug h J anuar

y 2007; a nd that appellant failed to a ppear in c ourt as orde red on N ovember 16, 2006. After

a hea ring on the State’s motion to revok e, the trial cour t found that appe llant had vio la te d th e te rm s and

c on dit ion s o f h is c omm un ity su pe rv isi on and revo ked his c omm

un ity

s u p e r v i s i o n
. T h e t r i a l c o u rti mp o s e d a s e n t e n c e o f

c o n f i n e m e n tf o r t w o ye ar s i na

s t a t e j a i l f

a c i l i t y. Issue on Appe al Ap pe lla nt’ s so le iss ue on

a pp e a l is that the tr ia l c ourt a bu se d it s d isc re tio n w he n it fa ile d to g ra nt h im c re dit

fo r t he tim e he ha d ser

ve d in the Sc ur

ry County Jail

. At tr ia l, ap pe lla nt sou g ht c re dit for the time he serve d in the county jail as a re quirement of his c ommunity supervision and for

the time he serve d in a state jail f acility as a require ment of his community supervision. The tria l court g ave a ppellant cr edit for tim e he had served that was not a condition of his communit y supervision (such a s f o r th e ti me h e s e r

v e d in th e c o u n ty ja il p r io r to th e h e ar in g s o n th e St a te ’ s mo ti o n s ) but denied his reque st for credit for time serve d as a condition of hi s community supervision. The trial court a lso ga

ve him cre dit for the time he serve d from October 13, 2005, to F ebrua ry 15, 2006, the t i m e h e s e r

v e d i nt h e s t a t e j a i l f

a c i l i t y o r aw a i t i n g t r an s p o rt a t i o nt o t h e s t a t e j a i l f a c i l i t y. Ap p e ll an t ar g u e s o n a

p p e a l th a t h e w a s f

o r c e d to s u

b mi t to p e r io d s o f c o n f

in e me nt in the Scurry County J ail in violation of T EX
. C ODE C R IM
. P R OC
. ANN . art. 42.12, § 15(d) (Ve rnon Supp. 2008). B y

failing to gr ant his reque st for credit for this county jail time, appellant contends that the trial court r atified the e rror and, therefor e, abused its discretion. Appellant bases his arg ument on his interpretation of T EX
. C ODE C R IM
. P R OC
. A NN . art. 42.12, §§ 12, 15(d) (Ve rnon Supp. 2008). We disag ree with his int erpr etation. Time Line T h e r ec o rdre fl ec t s t h e f

o l l o wi n g: Septem ber 21, 2003 A p p e l l an tc o m m i t t e d t h e o f f e n s e o f f o r g e r y. Novem ber 5, 2003 Ap pe lla nt a rr e ste d and con fi ned in th e co un ty ja il un til his plea he aringon November 20, 2003.4

Novem ber 20, 2003 The trial court co n v i ct s ap p el l an t an d p lace s him on

community

supervision.
Dec em ber, 4, 2003 State files its first motion t o revoke

. Dec em ber 5, 2003 Ap pe lla nt a rr e ste d a nd c on fi ne d in

the c ounty

ja il. January 5, 2004 Tr ia l cou rt mo d i f i e s t e r m s a n d c o n d i t i o n s o f c o m m u nit y supervisio n to include fourte en-da y participation in work p ro gra m an d

co n fi n em en ti nco u n t y

j ai l wh i l e n o two rk i n g. January 18, 2004 Ap pe lla nt r e le a se d f

ro m c ounty

ja il.
F ebruary 18, 2004 State filed sec ond motion to revoke.
F ebruary 23, 2004 Ap pe lla nt a rr e ste d a nd c on fi ne d in

the c ounty

ja il.
Marc h 4, 2004 Tr i a l c o u rt m o d i f i e s t h e t e r m s an d c o n d i t i o n s o f

c o m m u nit y supervisio n to include par ticipation in Cany on Reef Tr e a tme nt P ro g ra

m. Marc h 27, 2004 Ap pe lla nt r e le a se d f

ro m c ounty

ja il.
October 26, 2004 Tr ia l c ourt a me nd e d th e te rm s a

nd c on dit ion s o f c omm

un ity supervision to provide par tic i p ati on in the Midland Court Residential Treatment Center.
October 26, 2004 Ap pe lla nt a rr e ste d a nd c on fi ne d in

the c ounty

ja il.
Dec em ber 8, 2004 Ap pe lla nt r e le a se d f

ro m th e c ounty

ja il.
October 13, 2005 Tr ia l c ourt mod if ie d th e te rm s a

nd c on dit ion s of

c omm un ity s u p e r v is io n to in c lu d e c o n f

in e me n t in a s tate ja il f

a c il ity for 120 day s plus imm ediate a dmission t o county work prog ram and conf inement in count y j ail when not wor king until such t i m e a s a p p e l l an tw o u l d

b e t r an s p o rt e d

t o a s t a t e j a i l f

a c i l i t y. October 13, 2005 Ap pe lla nt a rr e ste d a nd pla c e d in c ounty ja il.
October 19, 2005 A p p e l l an tr e l e a s e d f r o m c o u n t y j a i l t o s t a t e j a i l f a c i l i t y. January 30, 2007 State files its final motion to revoke.
Marc h 7, 2007 Ap pe lla nt a rr e ste d a nd pla c e d in c ounty ja il.5

October 9, 2007 Hea ring on State’s final motion to revoke.
October 9, 2007 Trial court revoke d appellant’ s comm u n i t y s u p er v i s i o n and imp os e d a se nte nc e of

c on fi ne me nt f

or tw o y e ars in a

state ja il f a c i l i t y. I n its judgment, the trial c ourt g ave a ppellant cr edit for the f

ollowing time ser

ved: November

5, 2003, to November

20, 2003; Dec ember

5, 2003, to J anuar

y 5, 2004; Fe bruar y 23, 2004, to March 4, 2004; October 13, 2005, to Febr

uary 15, 2006; and Marc h 7, 2007, to October 9, 2007. Applicable Law Ar tic le 42 .1 2, se c tio n 1 2 p ro vid e s th a t th e tr ia l c ourt may imp os e c on fi ne me nt i n a c ounty ja il a s a te rm of felon y c omm

un ity su pe rv isi on . T his se c tio n a llo ws the tr ia l c ourt the le e wa

y to impose the confine ment in larg e or small i n cr em en t s s o long a s the total number of da y s in the

c ounty ja il d oe s n ot e xce e d a

ma ximumof

18 0 d ay s. T EX
. C ODE C R IM
. P R OC
. ANN
. art. 42.12, § 15 (V ernon Supp. 2008) de tails the proce dures for state jail community

supervision. Article 42.12, section 15(a )(2) provides that, af ter c onviction, the tr ia l c ourt

may su sp e nd the imp os iti on

of the sen ten ce a

nd pla c e the de fe nd ant o n c omm un ity supervision. Article 42.12, se ction 15(b) state s the term of c ommunity s u p er v i s i o n may be a minimum of two y ear s and a ma x imum of five y ear s. Article 42.12, section 15(b) a lso provides that the trial cour

t, under c erta in circumstanc es, may extend the t erm of community supervision to not more than te n y ear s. Ar tic le 42 .1 2, se c tio n 1 5( d) a llo ws the tr ia l c ourt a t th e be g inn ing of th e c omm un ity

s u p e r v i s i o nt o r e qu i r e t h e d e f

e n d an tt o s u

b m i tt o a p e r i o d o f

c o n f i n e m e n ti na

s t a t e j a i l f

a c i l i t y. Article 42.12, section 15(d) does not allow t he trial court to order state j ail fac ility commitment at the be g inn ingof

the c om mu ni ty su per

vis ion in c omb inatio n w ithc omm itm e nt i n th e c ounty ja il under A rticle 42.12, sec tion 12. Article 42.12, se ction 15(e) provides that, if the defe ndant violates the terms a nd conditions of his community

supervision, the trial cour t may conduct a

hea ri n g an d modify

the def endant’ s terms and c onditions of community supervision to include confine ment in a state jail f acility for not more than 180 da

y s and not less than 90 day s.Article 42. 12 , section 15 (e) provides: 1
If

a de f enda nt v iola te s a condi tion of

c om m unity s uper v is ion i m p ose d on the def

enda nt unde r t his ar tic le and a f

te r a he ar ing unde r S ec tion 21 of thi s ar tic le the judg e m odif

ie s th e d efen dant ’s c om m unity su p ervi si o n , t h e ju d ge m ay impo se an y san ct io n pe rmit te dby Sect io n 22 of th is art ic le , exc ep t t h atif th e ju d ge re quire s a def

enda nt t o s er v e a per iod of

c onf ine m ent in a st at e ja il f

el ony f ac ili ty a s a m odif

ic at ion of the def enda nt’s c om m unity s uper v is ion, the m inim

um te rm of c onf ine m ent is 90 da y s and the m ax im

um te rm of confinem ent is 180 day s.

Article 42. 12 , section 15 (d) reads in full as f ollo w s: 2
A

judge m ay

im pose as a condi tion of

com m unity super v is ion that

a def enda nt s ubm it at

the be g inning of the pe riod of

com m unity s uper v is ion t o a

te rm of c onf ine m ent in a st at e ja il f

el ony f ac ili ty f or a te rm of not le ss tha n 90 da y s or m ore tha

n 180 da y s, or a te rm of not le ss tha n 90 da y s or more tha

n one y ea r i f the de f enda nt is c onv ic te d of

an of f ens e punis habl e as a

s tate ja il f

el ony unde r S ec tion 481.112, 481. 1121, 481.113, or 481.120, H ea lth and Sa f

et y Code . A judg e m ay not re quire a def enda nt to subm it to bot

h the te rm of c onf ine m ent auth orized by this sub section and a term o f co nfinem ent un der Section 5 o r 1 2 of th is article. For th e purp oses of thi s subs ec tion, a def

enda nt pre v ious ly

has bee n conv ic te d of a f el ony reg ar dle ss of whet

her the s ent enc e f

or the pre v ious c onv ic tion w as a ct ual ly im pose d or w as proba

te d and s uspe nded. 6 Interpretation of Article 42.12, Sec tions 12 and 15 Ap pe lla nt app ears to be arguin g that, i f t he tr ia l c ourt

or de rs c on fi ne me nt i n a state ja il fac ility as a term and condition of community supervision under A rticle 42.12, sec tion 15(d), the trial court is prohibited from order ing confine ment in the county jail under Ar

ticle 42.12, sec tion 12 as

a te rm and c on dit ion of c omm un ity su pe rv isi on . A rt ic le 42 .1 2, se c tio n 15( d) a pp e ars to sup po rt

his argument. Howeve r, as the State points out in its bri ef , t he re cord r efle cts not that the trial cour t order ed his confine ment in a state jail fa cility pursuant to A rticle 42.12, sec tion 15(d) but, instead, ref lects that the trial c ourt order ed the c onfinement pursua nt to Article 42.12, sec tion 15(e). Ap p e l l ant w a s f

ir st p la c e d o n c omm

un ity su pe rv isi on in N ov e mbe r 2 00 3. Th e or ig ina l te rm s
and c on dit ion s o f h is co mmunit y su pe rv isi on did no t inc lud e c on fi ne me nt in eit he r a state ja il f

a c ili ty

or a c ounty

jail. Confinement in the county jail was not added as a term and condition until after the State’s first m otion to revoke when the tr ial court modified his community supervision in J anuar

y 20 04 . T he tr ia l c ourt

mod if ie d h is co mmunit

y su pe rv isi on to ad d co nf

ine me nt in a sta te ja il f

a c ili ty in October

2005 afte r conduc ting a

hear ing a nd fi n d i n g t h at appellant ha d violated the ter ms and conditions of his community supervision. This is the proce dure a uthorized by

Article 42.12, section 15(e ). 1 We ag ree with the State’s position that to read Ar ticle 42.12, sec tion 15(d) as ba rringany and all confine ment in the county jail as a ter

m of community

supervision means that we must ignore the clea r languag e of A rticle 42.12, sec tion 15(d) that the trial cour t “may impos e as a condition of 2

c omm un ity su pe rv isi on that a

de fe nd ant s ub mit at t

he be gin nin g o f th e pe rio d o

f c om mu nit

y7

supervision ” to c on fi ne me nt i n a state ja il f

a c ili ty (em ph a sis a dd e d) . T he lim iti nglangua g e in Article 42.12, se ction 15(d) that the tr ial court “ may not require a def

endant to sub m i t to both the te rm of c omm itm e nt authorized by this subsection and a ter m of c on fi ne me nt” in t

he c ounty ja il under A rticle 42.12, sec tion 12 clear ly re fe rs t o situations where the trial court ha s order ed

c on fi ne me nt i n a

state ja il f

a c ili ty a t th e be g inn ingof

the c omm

un ity su perv is ion

te rm (e mph a sis added)

. We also ag ree with the State’s observation that ap p el l ant’s int erpr etation ig nores the provisions of T EX
. C ODE C R IM
. P R OC
. ANN . art. 42.03, § 2(a )(1) (Ve rnon Supp. 2008):

I n all criminal cases t he judge of the court in which the defe ndant is convicted shall g ive the def

endant c re d i t o n t he def

endant’ s sentence for the time that the de fe nd ant h a s sp e nt:

(1 ) i n j a i l f

o r t h e c a s e , o t h e r t h an c o n f i n e m e n t s e r

v e d a s a condition of community

supervision, from the time of his a rre st and c on fi ne me nt u

nti l hi s se nte nc e by

the tr ia l c ourt

. The trial c ourt did not abuse its discretion. The issue on a ppeal is over

ruled. Holding The judg ment of the trial c ourt is affir med.

T E R RY M c C A LL JUSTI CE

May 7, 2009 Publis h. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J ., M c C a l l , J. , an d

S t r an g e , J.