Opinion filed July 21, 2011

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

__________

No. 11-10-00348-CR

__________

LUCRETIA MONIC WILLIS, Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 104th District Court

Taylor County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 14539B

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Lucretia Monic Willis, appellant, appeals from an order adjudicating her guilt. She

originally pleaded guilty to the offense of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver in a drugfree zone, and the trial court deferred the adjudication of her guilt. The trial court placed 

appellant on deferred adjudication community supervision for ten years and assessed a fine of 

$2,000. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke community supervision and adjudicate

appellant’s guilt. Upon finding all thirteen of the allegations in the State’s motion to be true, the 

trial court revoked appellant’s community supervision, adjudicated her guilty, and assessed 

punishment at confinement for twelve years and a fine of $1,177. We affirm. 

Appellant presents two issues on appeal. She argues in the first issue that the evidence is 

insufficient to support the trial court’s finding of true to the allegations to which she pleaded not 

true. In the second issue, appellant asserts that the trial court erred in finding the other 
2

allegations true because the State failed to produce any evidence in support of appellant’s plea of 

true as required by TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 1.15 (Vernon 2005). 

The record shows that appellant entered a plea of true to four of the State’s allegations, 

acknowledging that she had violated the terms and conditions of her community supervision as 

follows: that she had received a citation for driving without a valid driver’s license and that she 

had failed to pay her supervision fees, her fine, and her attorney’s fees as ordered. Appellant 

entered a plea of not true to the remainder of the allegations, six of which involved appellant’s

possession of controlled substances. After a hearing, the trial court found all of the allegations to 

be true.

With respect to appellant’s second issue, we first note that appellant’s reliance on 

Article 1.15 is misplaced. Article 1.15 does not apply to a revocation proceeding. Anthony v. 

State, 962 S.W.2d 242, 246 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1998, no pet.). A plea of true, standing 

alone, is sufficient to support the revocation of community supervision and the adjudication of 

guilt. Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 129 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979); Guillot v. State, 543 S.W.2d 

650, 653 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976). Consequently, the State need not have introduced evidence in 

support of the grounds to which appellant pleaded true. Appellant’s second issue is overruled. 

We do not reach the merits of appellant’s first issue because it is not dispositive of this 

appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1. Appellant’s first issue relates to only nine of the thirteen

grounds upon which the trial court based its decision to adjudicate. The trial court’s decision to 

adjudicate may be upheld on any of the other four grounds. A single, sufficient ground will 

support a trial court’s decision to revoke community supervision and proceed to an adjudication 

of guilt. Jones v. State, 571 S.W.2d 191, 193-94 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see TEX. CODE CRIM.

PROC. ANN. art. 42.12, § 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2010). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in 

adjudicating appellant’s guilt. 

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. 

PER CURIAM

July 21, 2011

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Hill, J.1

 

1

John G. Hill, Former Justice, Court of Appeals, 2nd District of Texas at Fort Worth, sitting by assignment.