i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 9- 00 07 5- CR Cy nthia J ennife r M AT HIS , Appellant
v . T h e STA TE of

Te xas, Appellee Fr om the 186th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2007-CR-11135 Honora ble Maria T ere sa He rr, Judge Presiding Opinion by : Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Sitt ing: Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice

Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: October 14, 2009 AFF I RMED Def endant Cy

nthia J ennife r Mathis ple d g uilty to the char g e of eva ding a rre st or detention with a vehicle . Pursuant to a plea barg ain, the trial court place d defe ndant on community supervision for two y ear s. Subsequently , the State fil ed a motion to revoke community supervision, alleg ing nine vio la tio ns of

the c on dit ion s o f h e r c omm un ity su pe rv isi on . On Janu ary 20 , 200 9, the tr ia l c ourt he ld a hea ring on the motion, a

nd the court revoke d defe ndant’s community supervision and sente nced04
- 09
- 00 07 5- CR

- 2- de fe nd ant t o tw o y e ars ’ c on fi ne me nt. On a pp e a l, d e fe ndant argue s th e tr ia l c ourt a bu se d it s dis c re tio n in re vo kin g he r co mmunit y su pe rv isi on and se nte nc ing he r to co nf ine me nt at a

state ja il fa c ili ty . We a ff

ir m. BACK GR OUND On Octobe r 10, 2008, the State filed a motion to revoke def

endant’ s community

supervision. The motion alleg ed nine violations, including one viol at i on of condition 5 and one violation of condition 15( H). Conditi on 5 require d defe ndant to repor t to her super

vision officer , and condition 15(H) r equire d defe ndant to attend the Cente r for Hea lth Care Servic es (“ CHCS”) for c ounseling and treatment. The State alleg ed def endant f ailed to re port to the supervision office r in pe rson for the months of Aug ust and September, 2008, in violation of the f ifth condition. The State also alleg ed de fe nd ant f

a ile d to re po rt

to an d ap ply

fo r d ru g and a lc oh ol c ouns e lin g tr e a tme nt w iththe CH CS in vio la tio n o f s e c tio n 1 5( H) . A s to bo th a lle g a tio ns , d e fe ndant pl e d “ Tr ue .” Th e State wa ive d it s
re ma ini nga lle g a tio ns of

vio la tio ns . T he tr ia l c ourt the n a dmo nis he d d e fe nd ant: “ Ine e d y ou to understand that . . . based on y our plea s of t ru e, t h at wo u l d be suff icient for me to revoke y our community

supervision and sente nce you to t wo y ea rs i n t he state ja il facility . . . . Do y ou understand that that’s what ca n happen toda

y ? ” De fenda

nt responded “Yes” and af firmed that she still wished to enter

her ple as of “ True.” Th e State re c omm e nd e d c on tin ue d pr ob a tio n a

nd a nin e ty -d ay

se nte nc e to a

su bs tanc e a bu se treatment fac ility
. The trial court then r equeste d a re commendation fr om the supervision offic er. Be cause the offic er ha d no indication that defe ndant had a substa n ce ab u s e p roblem, he
rec ommended defe ndant’s probation be revoke d. He state d that in March of 2008, defe ndant produce d a positive drugtest result, but the offic er e x plained that the de fenda nt had bee n taking04
- 09
- 00 07 5- CR

1 ... D ef end ant ad m i t s i n her bri ef t hat , b ecause she pl ed “ T rue” t o t he Stat e’ s al l egat i o ns, s he “ canno t argue t ha t t he ev i d en ce wa s i nsuff i cien t to su p p o rt t he re vo ca t i o n o f he r co m m un i t y s up erv i si o n.” T he refo re, we d o no t ad d ress whether t he t ri al co urt err ed i n revoki ng her com m uni t y s up ervi si o n.

- 3- cer tain medications known to cause false positi ves. I n April and July of 2008, def

endant’ s urinaly ses both came ba ck neg ative. Additionally , the o ffice r stated de fenda nt never informed him that she
curr ently had a substanc e abuse problem. B ased on that information , t h e s u p ervision officer conclude d there was “ no basis” for sending defe ndant to drug treatment. B e fo re g ra

nti ngthe mot ion

to r e vo ke , th e tr ia l c ourt

inf or me d d e fe nd ant o f t

he fo llo wi ng : [B ]as e d on w hat I

un de rs tand

of y our e xplanatio n to the pr ob a tio n d e pa rtme nt i s th a t, y es, y ou might have had some positives bac k in March, but that wa s beca use y ou wer e on some medic ations, and so, there fore , y ou wer en’t really having a substance a b u s e p r o b l e m w i t h m e t h a mp h e t a m i n e s . Y o u ’ v e b e e nt e s t i n g c l e ans i n c e t h e n . It do e s r a ise a

le g iti ma te qu e sti on a s to wh e the r y ou re a lly e ve n have a su bs tanc e a bu se pr ob le m. . . . I ’m

no t g oin g to l e t any

bo dy us e su bs tanc e a bu se tr e a tme nt
. . . jus t to g e to u to f g o i n g t o t h e p e n i t e n t i ar

y. The c ourt then made f

indings of “ True” as to both alleg ations, g rante d the motion to revoke
c o m m u n i t y s u

p e r v i s i o n , an d

s e n t e n c e d

d e f e n d an tt o 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. DI SCU SSIO N I n her sole issue on a

ppeal, de fenda

nt asserts the trial court should have sent her to in-patient treatment beca

use the c ourt had pre viously require d outpatient treatment and “then w hen [she] reque sted more intensive, in-patient treatment c onclude[d] t hat [she] did not have a dr ug problem at all and r efuse [d] her tre atment.” 1 Moreove r, def endant a rg ues, the trial c ourt abused its discre tion by relying upon a

supervision offic er’ s rec ommendation that she be de nied in-patient tre atment. We r eview a sentenc e imposed by the trial court for abuse of discre tion. J ac k so n v Sta te , 680 S.W .2d 809, 814 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). At the conclusion of re vocation proc eeding s, a trial cour t has broad discretion to continue, ex tend, m odify , or re voke a de fenda nt’s community

supervision.04
- 09
- 00 07 5- CR

- 4- See T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . art. 42.12 § 21(b) (Ve rnon Supp. 2008). The c ourt is restricte d in the sentenc e it imposes only

by the re levant statutory

limit s. See Vo n S

c ho un ma c he r v . S

tat e , 5 S.W .3d 22 1, 22 3 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 99 ) (ho ld in g “o nc e the tr ia l c ou rt pr oc e e ds to a dju dic a tio n, it i s
re str ic te d in

the se nte nc e it i mpo se s o nly by the re le va nt statut or

y lim its ” ). I n th is c a se , th e c ri me of e va din g arr e st or de te nti on wi th a ve hic le is a state ja il fe lony punis ha ble by c on fi ne me nt in a

state jail for any

term of not more than two y ear s or less than 180 day s. See T EX . P EN A L C ODE § 12.35(a) (V e rn on Sup p. 20 08 ). He re , the sente nc e imp os e d b y the tr ia l c ourt

—tw o y e ars of

state ja il time—fell within the statutory limit s. There fore , the cour t complied with its onl y sentenc ing restric tion, and revoking defe ndant’s probation inst ead of sending her to in-patient drug treatment did not amount to an abuse o f d i s cr eti on. Se e Ha wk ins v . S tat e , 1 1 2 S. W. 3 d

3 4 0 , 3 4 4
- 4 5 ( T e x. App.—Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.) (expressing approva l of trial cour t revoking probation and sentenc ing de fenda

nt to ten y ear s’ confine ment instead of dr ug treatment fac ility

despite def

endant’ s reque st to be sent to drug treatment fac ility ). Se c on dly , d e fe nd ant f

a ile d to ind ic a te to t

he c ourt sh e c ur re ntl y ha d a su bs tanc e a bu se problem
. D e f

e n s e c o u n s e l c o u ld

o n ly p o in t t o d e f

e n d an t’ s p o s it iv e u r in a ly s is f r o m t e nmo nths
e arl ie r a nd argue , “ to [d e fe nd ant’ s] be ne fi t, s he did have ne g a tiv e UA s f

oll ow ingtho se po sit ive s. So whatever was g oing on, whateve r—I fee l like that she wa s try ing to a ddress whatever issues. She did no t r e po rt

to C e nte r f

or He a lthCare Se rv ic e s w hic h wa s a re qu ir e me nt o f h e r p ro batio n b e c a us e of that.” N either the argume nt from def ense c ounsel nor the potentially false positive fr om ten months earlier

g ave the trial court suff icient indication to find t h at d ef en d ant currently

had a substance a

buse pro b l em. The trial court’s c onclusion that nothing indicated def endant ha d a
s u b s t an c e a b u s e p r o b l e m d o e s n o t f

a l l o u t s i d e t h e z o n e o f r e a s o n a b l e d i s a g r e e m e n t
. T h e r e f or e , it04
- 09
- 00 07 5- CR

- 5- was not unre asonable for the trial court to rely upon the s upervision officer’ s rec ommendation that defe ndant be den i ed in-patient treatment. Se e Dw y e r v . S tat e , 2 0 0 3 WL

2 5 2 1 4 5 , a t * 1
- 3 ( T e x. App.—Texarkana

2003) (no pe t.) (mem. op., not des i gn at ed for publication) (appr oving of trial court’s r eliance on probation off icer ’s sentenc ing r ecommendation). CO NC LU SION We o ve rr ule de fe nd ant’ s is su e on

a pp e a l and a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt.

Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Do No t Pu

bli sh