IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-13-00061-CR

LARRY CONNELL WATSON,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 54th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2009-1436-C2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Larry Connell Watson pled guilty to theft. TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 

31.03(e)(4)(A) (West Supp. 2012). The trial court deferred an adjudication of guilt and 

placed Watson on community supervision for four years. Over two years later, the 

State filed a motion to adjudicate, and Watson pled true to nine of the 18 violations 

alleged in the State’s motion. After a hearing, the trial court adjudicated Watson guilty, 

sentenced him to two years in a state jail facility, suspended Watson’s sentence, and 

placed him on community supervision for five years. As a condition of community 
Watson v. State Page 2

supervision, the trial court ordered Watson to be placed in a substance abuse felony 

punishment facility (SAFP). 

In one issue, Watson argues that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing 

the SAFP condition rather than allowing Watson to attend an outpatient substance 

abuse program at the Veteran’s Administration hospital. Because the trial court did not 

abuse its discretion, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

An award of community supervision is not a right, but a contractual privilege, 

and conditions thereof are terms of the contract entered into between the trial court and 

the defendant. Speth v. State, 6 S.W.3d 530, 534 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). A trial court has 

broad discretion in determining the conditions to be imposed. Id. at 533. "The judge 

may impose any reasonable condition that is designed to protect or restore the 

community, protect or restore the victim, or punish, rehabilitate, or reform the 

defendant." TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.12 § 11(a) (West Supp. 2012). However, 

if a defendant wishes to complain about the appropriateness of (as opposed to the 

factual basis for) a trial court's condition of community supervision, he must do so in 

the trial court, and he must do so explicitly. See Speth v. State, 6 S.W.3d 530, 534 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1999); see also Idowu v. State, 73 S.W.3d 918, 921 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002).

Watson complains about the appropriateness of the SAFP condition of 

community supervision; thus, he was required to object to the imposition of this 

condition. He did not. He contends that because the only contested item at the 
Watson v. State Page 3

adjudication hearing was whether to place him at SAFP, as the community supervision 

officer recommended, or to place him in an outpatient treatment program at the VA, as 

Watson desired, his complaint as to the imposition of the condition requiring his 

placement at SAFP was, nevertheless, preserved for appellate review.

The State takes no position on whether Watson preserved his complaint for 

review. Assuming without deciding that Watson has preserved his complaint, we find 

that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. 

The trial court heard testimony that Watson had failed several urinalysis tests. 

Because of those failed tests, he was required to attend Alcoholics Anonymous. After 

more failed urinalysis tests, his community supervision officer recommended SAFP. 

Watson was willing to go to SAFP initially but then balked. Watson wanted to attend 

an outpatient VA program for his drug problem which would also allow him to 

continue to receive the mental health treatment he had been receiving from the VA. 

However, Watson had previously attended an inpatient substance abuse program at the 

VA but left two days before its completion. Watson stated that he left because his 

brother was killed. Watson also stated that he had already received a certificate of 

completion for that program but did not produce a copy of that certificate. Watson was 

also unsuccessful in completing a compensated work therapy program through the VA 

in Temple. He stated he finished his treatment but because of his community 
Watson v. State Page 4

supervision in Waco, he could not complete the employment requirement of the 

program.

After reviewing the evidence, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion 

in requiring Watson to be placed in SAFP as a condition of community supervision 

rather than allowing him to attend an outpatient program at the VA. Watson’s sole 

issue is overruled, and the trial court’s judgment is affirmed. 

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed October 17, 2013

Do not publish

[CR25]