Al t h o u g h t h e r e p o r t e r ' s r e c o r d s h o ws t h a t St e wa r t p l e a d e d " n o c o n t e s t " t o t h e c h a r g e, at t he 1 r ev ocat i on h ear i ng, t he t r i al cour t m i st akenl y st at ed t hat St ewar t pl eaded " gui l t y
. " T he j udgm ent al so m i st akenl y r eci t es t hat t he t r i al cour t " f ound [ St ewar t ] gui l t y " and t hen sent enced hi m t o de f er r ed a dj udi cat i on fo r five y e a rs
. T h e ju d g m e n t fu rth e r i n c o rr e c tl y s ta te s th a t S te w a rt "e n te re d a p l e a o f g u i l ty to th e o ff e n s e ." 

### NUM BER 13-07- 0062 2-CR 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## EDI NBURG

PRIN CE IVOR Y ST EWA RT , A pp ellan t,

v . TH E ST A

TE OF T EXA S, A pp ellee.

On ap pe al f rom th e C riminal Dist rict C ou rt

of H arris C ou nt y , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re Ju stice s R od rigu ez, Garza, a nd Ve la M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice R od rigu ez Appel lan t, Pr inc e Iv or

y Ste w art, w as ind ic ted b y the gra n d j u ry for the o ff ense of ind ecenc y

wit h a chil d. See T EX
. P ENAL
. C OD E A NN . § 21.11( a) (1 ) (V er non 200 3)

. After Stew art ple aded no co ntes t, the tr ial co urt found t hat t he ev ide nce pr esent ed 1T he S t ate ac k no w l e d g e s th e d i s c rep an c y , an d a s k s t ha t w e c orrec t t he j ud gm en t t o refl ec t t ha t S t ew art

p l e a d e d "n o c o n te s t."

Ef f ect i v e Jun e 15, 2007, a def endan t i s per m i t t ed t o ap peal a t r i al cour t ' s deci si on t o pr oceed t o an 2 adj udi cat i on o f gui l t on t he or i gi nal char ge, whi ch " i s r ev i ewabl e i n t he sa m e m anner as a r ev ocat i on h ear i ng c o n d u c te d u n d e r S e c ti o n 2 1 o f th i s a rti c l e i n a c a s e i n w h i c h a n a d ju d i c a ti o n o f g u i l t h a d n o t b e e n d e fe rr e d ." T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN . a rt. 4 2 .1 2 , § 5 (b ) (V e rn o n S u p p . 2 0 0 7 ); D ru g a n v . S ta te , 240 S. W

. 3d 8 75, 878 n.1 (T ex
. C ri m
. A pp
. 20 07 ). 2 subs tanti ated Stew ar t' s g uil t. At th e s e n tencing hear ing , t he tr ial co urt defer re d adj udi cat ion and pla ced Stew ar t on communi ty su per v is ion for a ter m of

fiv e y ear s a nd
ass ess ed a fine of $1,00 0. Subs eq uentl y , t he St ate file d a mot ion to re v oke the unadj udi cat ed probat ion alle g ing that St ew art v iol ated si x ter ms of co mmunity

su per v is ion

. Stew ar t pl eaded t ru e to thr ee of the all eg ed v iol ati ons, w her eupon t he tr ial co urt r ev oked Ste w a r t ' s c o mm u n i t y s u p e r v i s i o n , a d j u d i c a t e d h i m g u i l t y o f t h e i n d i c t e d o ffe n s e , and sent enced hi m to confinement for a ter m of tw elv e y ear s. Ste w art c ontends , by one is sue, that the t ri al cour

t abuse d i ts d is cr eti on i n r ev oki ng hi s d eferr ed adj udi cat ion co mmunity
s up er v i s i on
. W e affi r m. I. S TA NDA RD OF R EVI EW Our re v iew of an or der

r ev oki ng co mmunity

su per v is ion i s l imi ted t o the q uest ion of

w hether the tr ial co ur t abused it s d is cr eti on. Ri ck els v. Sta te , 2 0 2 S

. W

. 3 d 7 5 9 , 7 6 3 (T e x. Cr im. App. 2006) ; Jac ks on v . St ate , 645 S.W .2d 3 03, 3 05 (Tex . Cr im. App. 1983)

. Und er this stan dard , all that is essen tially requir ed is som e evidence to supp ort the trial court's deci si on. Dav

il a v. St ate , 173 S.W .3d 195 , 197 (Te x
. App .–Corp us Christi 2005 , no. pet. ).

II. A N AL Y S IS Stew ar t ar g ues that the t ri al cour t abu sed it s d is cr eti on bec ause it "bas ed i ts decision to rev oke [h is] co mm unity su pervisi on upo n a pha nto m plea o f g uilty." Stew art

2 appear s t o c omplai n tha t t he tr ial co urt re v oked his communi ty super v is ion based on th e mis tak en beli ef that Stew art had pleaded g uil ty to the off ense before the tri al cour t defer re d3

adj udi cat ion

. How ev er , bas ed on our r ev iew of the r ecor d, t he tr ial court pr oceed ed to
re v oke Stew ar t' s c ommunit y su per v is ion onl y

afte r Stew art pl eaded "t ru e" to thr ee all eg ati ons in the S tate' s a mended moti on to re v oke. After Stew art ple aded "t ru e" to the Stat e's al leg ati ons, the tr ial co ur t found t hat t her e w a s suffici ent e v ide nce to s uppor t t he Stat e's m oti on "by a pr eponder ance of the ev ide nce or g re ater ." See i

d. (prov iding that in
a r ev ocat ion pr oceed ing the Stat e must prov e by a pr eponder ance of the e v ide nce that the defend a n t viol a ted a con dit ion of communi ty su per v is ion as al leg ed i n the moti on to
rev oke). Ste w art's plea s of " t ru e " t o t h ree of

the violations alleged bythe St ate are suffici ent t o suppo rt the tr ial co urt' s r ev ocat ion of his co mmunity su per v is ion

. See Cole v. Stat e , 578 S.W .2d 127, 128 (Tex . Cr im. App. 1979) ("[A] ppel lan t' s plea of tru e, s tandi ng
a lo n e, i s s uff ic ien t t o s uppor t t he r ev ocat ion of pr obati on.") ; Jones v. Sta te , 112 S.W .3d 266 , 268 (Tex. App. –Corpu s Christi 20 03, n o pet .) ("P leas of t rue, stan ding alone , supp ort
re v ocat ion of communi ty su per v is ion .")

. Therefor e, w e concl ude t hat t he tr ial co urt di d not abuse i ts dis cr eti on w hen it rev oked Stew art' s communi ty su per v is ion

. See Rickels , 202 S.W .3d a t 763

. W e ov er ru le Stew art' s s ole i ss ue. III
. C ONCL US I ON W e modi fy the t ri al cour t' s jud g ment to re flect that appel lan t pl eaded "n o c ontes t" to t he offense, and w e aff ir m the tr ial co urt' s j udg ment as modi fied. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 43.

NE LDA V. RO DR IGU EZ J u s t i c e Do not p ubl is h. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47 .2(b). Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s 2 1st day

of Aug ust , 200 8.