NO. 07-08 -049 2-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 D OC TOBER20, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ GILB ERT JOE SEGURA, AP PEL LANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 10 0 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF CO L L IN GS W OR T H CO UNT Y;

NO . 258 3; H ON ORABLE DA N MI KE B IR D, JU DG E

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Follow ing a plea of guilty to assault on a pub lic serv antin 2005 , App ellant , Gilbert Joe Seg ura, was g ra nted deferred adjudi cat ion for t hree y ears, ass ess ed a $1,500 fine, an d p l a c e d o n c o mm u n i ty s u p e r v i s i o n . I n 2 0 0 8 , t h e S t a t e fi l e d a m o t i o n t o a d j u d ic ateEffect iv e June 15, 2007, the Leg is lat ure amended arti cl e 42.12, § 5( b) of the Tex as 1 Cod e of Cr imi nal Procedure t o p e rmi t an appeal from t he tr ial co urt’ s d eter minat ion to adj udi cat e gui ltin the same manner as a rev ocat ion hear ing
. See T ex. Code Cri m. Proc. Ann . art. 42 .12 , § 5(b) (Vernon Supp . 200 8). 2 all eg ing numerous v iol ati ons of the c ondi ti ons of community su per v is ion
. Appel lan t ent ered a p lea of

n ot true to all a llegations except tha t he pled t rue to consu min g alcoh ol. Af ter hea ring evidence, the tr ia l c o u rt adjud icated Appe llant guilty of the original of

fense and assesse d his pun ishm entat ten years conf inem ent
. Prese nting f iv e po ints of error, 1 A p p e l l a n tm a i n t a i n s t h e tr i a l co u rter re d i n ( 1 ) he a r i n g t h e c a s e w i t h o u tt h e p re s e n c e o f a key w it ness w ho was subpo enaed b y the Stat e butw ho di d notappear bec a u se he was seek ing m e d i c a l t re a t me n ti n N e w M e x i c o , ( 2 ) a l l o w i n g R
. T. M i l l s t o t e s t i fy re g a rd i ng hearsay tes ti mony

of the a ll eg ed v icti m, James O’N eal Mil ls , (3) f ind ing that he v iol ated the condi ti on of communi ty super v is ion that he commi t no offense, (4 ) findi ng thathe v iol ated the c ondi ti on of communi ty super v is ion that he re por

t in person or in w ri ti ng , and ( 5) fail ing to g ra nt hi s mot ion for n ew tr ial w hen it was p resent ed th at ne w ev ide nce had bee n rec ei v ed w hi c h w ou l d c on trad i ct he ars ay t es ti mo ny

p res en te d by

t he S ta te
. W e affi r m. Gen erally , App ellantconte nds th at he w as harm ed by the trial court’s alleged e rrors in tw o w ays: ( 1) by t h e trial court’s decision to adjud icate, and (2) by the trial court’s a s s e s s m e n to f

p u n is h m e n t
. W e wil l a d d re s s e a c h co n t e n t io n se p a ra t e ly.3 Back ground Con dit ion 9 of Appel lan t’ s c ommunity su per v is ion req uired hi m to “ abst ain from t he cons umpti on of al cohol in any form and at any ti me.” Appel lan t tes ti fied that one M onday a fte r work , he and s ome co -wor kers wanted to “ par ty a l ittl e bi t and ce leb ra te.” They bou ght liq uor an d be er and he adm itted t o drinking a “little liq uor beca use [h e] can ’t han dle li q uor .” H e a l s o a d mi tt e d t o c o n s u mi n g b e e r . A c c o rd i n g t o A p p e l l a n t , J a me s M i l l s , w ho w as v er y i ntox ic ated, w anted to g o g et dr ug s. They di d nothav e any

money and tr ied to trade jew elry

for drugs, but w ere un successf ul. App ellanttestif ied tha t Jam es asked him to mak e anot her

“ ru n” and he re fused. Ja mes be g an walk ing dow n the road w it h a fifth o f Jos e C uer

v o and Appel lan t di d notse e hi m ag ain thatni g ht. Ja mes l ater ac cus ed Appel lan t of robbi ng hi m w it h a k nife, a n al leg ati on w hic h he deni ed. James ’s brother , R .T. M il ls , t est ified ov er o bjecti on th at J ames t old hi m he was ro bbed w it h a kni fe by two co-w or kers, a “ g uy named S tephen and a g uy named G il ber

t.” Mill s testif ied th at Jam es w as cry ing, upset , and an “em otion al w reck.” The trial court allowed the te stimo ny as an ex cited u ttera nce, desp ite Mill s’s testimo ny tha t he was able to c alm James dow n before g oin g to the s her iff’s d epar tment. Dep uty Bi ll y Jo e Sel frid g e tes ti fied th at he w as on duty w hen J ames c ame i n to re por t bei ng ro bbed. He tes ti fied that James did not s how physi cal si g ns of inj ur

y , butw as jer ki ng , s haki ng , breat hin g hard, and scared. An ambulanc e w as cal led , and he was tak en to t he hos pit al.4

W hil e on communi ty

su per v is ion , Ap pel lant was s uper v is ed pr imar il y

by Lupe Cha v ez . Appel lan t t est ified thathe a nd C hav ezhad a g ood relations hip
. Cha v ezw as unav ail abl e at the h ear ing on t he State’ s motion to adj udi cat e due to underg oin g treatment for an il lne ss i n N ew

M ex ic o. Howev er , Leo n a rd T e x Sel v idg e, an off ic er

w ho had super v is ed App ell ant b ri efly , t est ified from Ap pel lan t’ s records. Sel v idg e tes ti fied that he w as the p erson w ho i nit ial ly rev iewed th e c ondi ti ons and ter ms w hen Ap pel lan t was firs t pl aced on c ommunity super v is ion
. Each condi ti on w as re ad and Appel lan t did not ind ic ate a lac k o f unders tandi ng . Acc ordin g to the records, Appel lan t di d n o tre p o rtt o t h e C o mm u n i ty S u p e r v i s i o n D e p a rt me n ti n N o v e mb e r a n d D ecember 2007, nor

i n J anuar

y , F ebr uar

y , M arch, Apr il , and May 2008. Sel v idg e also tes ti fied from Appel lan t’ s records about other v iol ati ons of the c ondi ti ons of community su per v is ion
. Af ter prese nta tion o f

all ev iden ce, th e trial court foun d as true three of the State ’s all eg ati ons in it s mot ion to adj udi cat e. Spec ific all y , the c our t found s uff ic ien t ev ide nce that Appel lan t, w hil e in the c ourse of committi ng theft, int enti onal ly or kn ow ing ly

threatened or p la ce d Ja m e s Mil ls in fe a r of im m in e n t b o d ily in ju ry or d e a t h w h i l e u s in g or e xhib it in g a kni fe. The c our

t al so found that Appel lan t fail ed to r e p o rta s req uired for the mont hs of Novembe r an d D e c e m b er 200 7 an d Jan uary through May 200 8. Finally , the trial court foun d tha t App ellantconsu me d alcoh ol w hile on comm uni t y s u pervisi on. The court re v oked Appel lan t’ s c ommunity su per v is ion and g ra nted the Stat e’s moti on to adj udi cat e.5

Dur ing the puni shmentphas e, the Stat e recommended the max imum s entenc e of ten y ears w hile App ellant asked for lenien cy . Considering the u nde rly ing of fense of assau lt on a pub lic serv antand the ne w o f fense of assau lt w ith a de adly weap on, the trial court sent ence d App ellantto ten y ears con f inem entbut foun d tha t a f ine would be m ean ingless. Decis ion to Adj udicate Standa rd of Rev iew W hen rev iew ing an orde r rev oki ng community super v is ion imposed under

an o rd er of deferred ad judicat ion, th e sole qu estion before this Cou rt is w het her the trial court abuse d i ts dis creti on. Rick els v. Sta te, 202 S
. W
. 3 d 7 5 9, 76 3 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 20 06); Car dona v . St ate , 665 S.W .2d 4 92, 4 93 ( Tex .C rim.App. 198 4) ; Jacks on v . St ate , 645 S
. W
. 2 d 3 0 3 , 3 0 5 (T e x. Cr im
. A p p . 1 9 8 3 ). In a re vo c a t io n p ro c e e d in g, t h e S t a t e m u s tp ro ve by a preponderance of the ev ide nce that the p ro bati oner v iol ated a condi ti on of communi ty super v is ion as al leg ed i n the moti on to rev oke. Cob b v . State , 851 S.W .2d 8 71, 8 74 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1993)
. If the State fails to meet i ts burden of proof, the tr ial co urt abu ses it s d iscret ion i n rev oki ng co mmunity su per v is ion
. Car

dona , 665 S.W .2d a t 494
. In det ermin ing the suf

f iciency of

the evidence to susta in a rev ocat ion, we view t he e v iden ce in the l ig ht most fav orabl e to the t ri al cour t' s r uli ng . Jones

v. Sta te , 589 S.W .2d 4 19, 4 21 (Te x .Crim.Ap p. 19 79). Add itiona lly , a plea of t ru e stand ing alone is suf f icient to supp ort a tr ial co urt’ s rev ocat ion order
. Mo ses v. Sta te , 590 S.W .2 d 4 6 9 , 470 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1979)
.6 Di sc uss ion Mi ndful of the fiv e poi nts of er ro r ra is ed by Appel lan t, his ple a of tru e to cons umpti on o f a lc o h o l is a lo n e s u f

f ic ie n t t o s u p p o rt t h e t ri a l co u rt ’s a d ju d ic a t io n o f gu il t
. Ad d it io n a ll y, Appel lan t’ s o w n tes ti mony co n f irm e d t hat h e c onsumed alc ohol w hil e on communi ty super v is ion
. Con seq uentl y , the tr ial cour t did not er r in it s d eci si on to adj udi cat e Appel lan t g uil ty as ch arg ed. A sse ssm ent of Punishme nt The cr ux of Appel lan t’ s a rg ument i s that his puni shment w oul d hav e been different had the trial court no t erred in its d ecisions to proce ed w ithou t the testim ony of his primary super v is ion off ic er , Lup e C hav ez , and to admitthe tes ti mony of R. T. Mi ll s conc er nin g the all eg ed hearsay

st atements of his brother , J ames M il ls
. Ass uming , ar guendo, that the t ri al cour t erred in eithe r deci si on, “t he deci si on of w hat p uni shmentto ass ess after adj udi cat ing t h e d e fe n d a n tg u i lt yis a pu re l y n o r ma t i v e p ro c e s s , n o ti n t r i n s i c a l l y fa ct b o u n d , a n d i s l e ft to th e un fette red discretio n of the tr ia l ju d ge. ” Sm it h v . St ate, 286 S. W .3d 3 33, 3 44 (T e x.Cri m .A p p . 2 0 0 9 ). Iti s a lso t h e ge n e ra l ru le t h a t a s e n te n ce im p o se d w it h in th e ran ge of punis hment es tabl is hed by the Leg is lat ure w il l not be di stu rb ed on appeal
. Jackson v. State, 680 S.W .2d 8 09 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1984)
. Beca use the puni shment ass ess ed di d not exceed th e range of

pun ishm entprovi ded byla w, A p p e llant occa sione d no rev ersible ha r m.7

Acc ordin g ly , we ov er ru le Appel lan t’ s i ss ues and affirm the t ri al cour t’ s j udg ment.

Pat rick A. Pirtle Justice Do not p ubl is h.