NO. 07-06 -025 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 OC TOBER4, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ W ILL IAM CASSIDY W EAV ERS, AP PEL LANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 64 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF S W IS HE R CO UNT Y; TH NO . A3 691- 0203; HO NO RA BLE R OBERT W . KI NK AID , J R. , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t, W il li am C ass idy W eav ers a ppeal s from a jud g ment rev oki ng co mmunity super v is ion and impos ing se ntenc e pursuantto a c onv icti on for dr iv ing w hil e i ntox ic ated. W e affi r m. A p p e ll a n tp le d gu il ty t o t h e o f fe n s e o f d ri vin g wh il e in t o xic a t e d , a t h ird d e gre e fe lo n y, on M arch 27, 2 002, and was sent enced to sev en years c o n f in e m e n t in t he In sti tuti onal Di v is ion of

t h e T e xas D epar

tment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce; howev er , pursuantto a pl ea a greement, the t ri al cour t probated the s entenc e and pla ced appel lan t on communi ty2

supe rv ision for seven y ears. On March 29 , 200 6, the State f iled a m otion to rev oke appel lan t’ s c ommunity

su per v is ion all eg ing that appel lan t had co mmitt ed th re e v iol ati ons of his co mmunity

su per v is ion
. After a hear ing on J une 12, 2006, the tr ial cour t found the all eg ati ons tr ue, rev oked appe lla n t’ s c ommunity su per v is ion , and ordered appe ll ant t o ser v e the se v en year

se ntenc e i n the Ins ti tuti onal D iv is ion of th e T e xas D epar tment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce. Appel lan t fil ed hi s n oti ce of appeal co ntendi ng tha t (1 ) th e tr ial co urt abu sed it s dis creti on i n rev oki ng a p p e ll ant’ s c ommunity su per v is ion bec ause the e v ide nce w as insuf f icient to supp ort the trial court’s dete rmina tion a nd, (2) t h a t the rev ocat ion of his communi ty

su per v is ion co nst it uted a deni al of ap pel lan t’ s ri g ht to due proces s u nder the United State s and Te x as Const itution s. In t he present

ca se, the Stat e al leg ed th re e v iol ati ons of community su per v is ion by app ellant : (1) comm ission of a new of

fense against state law ; (2) fa ilure to pe rform communi ty

se rv ic e hours a s req uired by the order

pl aci ng appel lan t on communi ty super v is ion ; a n d ( 3 ) o perati on of a moto r v ehi cl e w it hout an i g nit ion i nter loc k d ev ic e. At the rev ocat ion he aring, appe llant ple d true to each of the allegatio ns. A trial co urt’s d ete rmina tions during re v ocat ion he arings are rev iew ed for an ab use of dis cre ti o n . S ee J ackson v . St ate, 645 S. W .2d 3 03, 3 05 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1983)
. An appel lan t' s p lea of tr ue, s tandi ng al one, is suffici ent t o s uppor t t he rev ocat ion of communi ty super v is ion
. See C ole v . State, 578 S.W .2d 127, 12 8 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1979)
. To meet t he re q uire m e n ts of due proces s, the fin al re v ocat ion of communi ty su per v is ion mustbe3

precede d by a hear ing , w here the defendant is enti tl ed to w ri tten noti ce of t h e cla imed v iol ati ons of his co mmunity sup e rvisio n , di sc los ure of the ev ide nce ag ain st him, an oppor tuni ty to be heard in person and to present w it ness es and document ar y ev ide nce, a neut ra l hear ing body , and a w ri tten st atement by the fact f ind er

as to the ev ide nce re li ed on and the reason s for revoki n g c ommunity

su per v is ion . Se e Ex

par te C ar mona, 18 5 S.W .3d 4 9 2 , 4 95 (T ex.Cr im.A pp. 200 6). A trial court den ies app ellantdue process if it ar bit ra ri ly

refuses to cons ide r the e nti re rang e of puni shmentfor a n offense or i f it re fuses to c onsi der

the ev ide nce and i mposes a predeter mined puni shment
. Jefferson v . St ate, 803 S. W .2d 4 70, 4 71 ( Tex .App. –Da ll as 1991, pet. re f’d)
. Con si der ing thatappel lan t pl ed tr u e to all three v iol ati ons, w here any one of the v iol ati ons woul d be suffici ent t o rev oke appel lan t’ s c ommunity su per v is ion , we c oncl ude that the t ri al cour

t did n o t a b u se it s d is creti on i n maki ng aff ir mati v e findi ng s t hat t he ev ide nce w as suffici ent t o prov e by a pre p o n d e ra nce of the ev ide nce that appel lan t had v iolate d his com mu nity supe rv ision. See Cole, 578 S.W
. 2 d a t1 2 8 . W e overrule appel lan t’ s first is sue. Next, appel lan t contend s that the tri al cour t di d notco nsi der

mit ig ati ng ev ide nce and predeter mined appel lan t’ s p uni shment
. Appel lan t c ontendsthatthe tr ial co urt’ s c omments tha t “I th ou g ht
. . . I ha d g i v en y ou my be s t s pe ec h
. . . ab ou t pe op l e on fel ony DW I p ro b a t io n . . . I h a ve n e ve r s e e n a n yb o d y ge ta s m a n y b re a k s a s y o u s e e m t o h a ve received” dem onst rate th at th e trial court w as biase d an d ha d pred ete rmine d to revoke appel lan t’ s c ommunity

su per v is ion and sent ence him to t he max imum s entenc e av ail abl e. Appel lan t c ontendsthathe was deni ed due proces s b ecaus e he w as not a fforded a neutral4

hea ring bod y . S ee Ex parte Ca rmon a, 185 S .W .3d a t 495
. Ho w ever, th e trial court also sta ted, “b ased upon the ev ide nce present ed, and y our plea asente re d, .
. . t he probati on prev iou sl y

g ra nted to y ou is hereby re v oked. ” Fur ther , the c omments appel lan t c omplai ns of w ere made a fter a ppel lan t, hismother , s tep- g ra ndmother , and fri end t estif ied on appel lan t’ s b ehal f. Addi ti onal ly , appel lan t has not show n, by re cord re ferenc e, that the t ri al cour t di sreg arded t he w it ness es’ tes ti mony . Fi nal ly , the tr ial co urt’ s referenc es to prev iou s admoni shment s a nd war nin g s g iv en to appell ant, w it hout further ev ide nce of bias , do not demonst ra te t hat t he tr ial co urt predeter mined appel lan t’ s sent ence. See Br umitv . St ate, 206 S. W .3d 6 39, 6 45 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 2006)( w ar nin g al one i nsuffici ent t o c oncl ude t ri al c o u rtp re d e t e r m i n e d s e n t e n c e ) ; S e e a l s o P ra t e r v . S t a t e , N o . 0 7 - 0 6 - 0 3 7 3 - C R , 2 0 0 7 WL 911836, *1 (Tex .App. –Amar il lo Ma rc h 27, 2007, no p et. h.)( mem. op., not des ig nated for publ ic ati on)
. Abse nt a cl ear sh ow ing of bias, a t rial co urt' s a cti ons w il l be presumed to hav e been cor re ct. Br umit , 206 S. W .3d a t 645
. W e c oncl ude t hat t he tr ial co urt di d not den y app ellantdue process by rev oking app ellant ’s com mu nity supe rv ision. W e overrule appel lan t’ s s econd i ss ue. Con cl usi on For t h e fo re going reaso ns, w e af f irm the trial court’s revocat ion of app ellant ’s communi ty

su per v is ion
. Mackey K. Hancock Justice Do not p ubl is h.