Court Opinion

ID: 9403431
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-21 06:09:58.793796+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:06.903057
License: Public Domain

Affirm and Opinion Filed June 13, 2023

                                                  In The
                                   Court of Appeals
                            Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                         No. 05-21-00941-CR
                                         No. 05-21-00942-CR

                         MITCHELL WAYNE AUSTIN, Appellant
                                       V.
                           THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

                   On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court
                                Dallas County, Texas
                  Trial Court Cause Nos. F-1770576-T & F-1258000-K

                              MEMORANDUM OPINION
                      Before Justices Nowell, Goldstein, and Breedlove
                                 Opinion by Justice Nowell
        Mitchell Wayne Austin appeals from two judgments revoking his community

supervision and sentencing him to terms of confinement. In two issues, appellant

argues the evidence is insufficient for the trial court to have found one of the State’s

allegations in its amended motions to revoke to be true and he asserts his plea was

not voluntary.1 We affirm the trial court’s judgments.

    1
     Appellant was originally represented on appeal by appointed counsel who filed an Anders brief in
support of counsel’s motion to withdraw. Appellant then retained counsel for the appeal, Kenneth
Weatherspoon. When Mr. Weatherspoon filed an appearance, we substituted him for appointed counsel.
Mr. Weatherspoon filed a brief on appellant’s behalf raising two issues. The brief states it is “in addition to
        In trial court cause number F12-58000-K, the State charged appellant with

aggravated robbery occurring in July 2012. After appellant pleaded guilty, the trial

court entered an order of deferred adjudication and placed him on community

supervision for a term of six years. In trial court cause number F17-70576-T, the

State charged appellant with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon occurring in

February 2017. After appellant pleaded guilty, the trial court entered an order of

deferred adjudication and placed appellant on community supervision for a term of

five years.

        In May 2020, the State filed a motion to revoke in each case. The State alleged

appellant violated several conditions of his community supervision. Appellant

pleaded true to the allegations in the State’s motions on July 31, 2021, and the trial

court deferred sentencing until the following month. The sentencing did not occur.

        In February 2021, the State filed amended motions to revoke community

supervision alleging seven violations, including that appellant committed murder on

August 14, 2020. The trial court held a hearing on October 12, 2021, at which time

appellant was permitted to withdraw his pleas entered on July 31, 2021. Appellant

then pleaded not true to the allegations in the State’s amended motions to revoke,

and the trial court proceeded to hear testimony. The trial court found appellant

the Anders brief” filed by appointed counsel. However, an Anders brief is a brief in support of an appointed
attorney’s motion to withdraw based on the frivolousness of the appeal. See In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d
403, 404 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008). Because we have substituted Mr. Weatherspoon for appointed counsel,
the motion to withdraw and its supporting Anders brief are now moot, and we do not consider them.
                                                   –2–
violated conditions A, C, and R of his community supervision as alleged in the

State’s amended motions, but it also found appellant did not violate condition E. In

cause number F17-70576-T, the trial court sentenced appellant to fifteen years’

confinement; in cause number F12-58000-K, the trial court sentenced appellant to

forty years’ confinement. This appeal followed.

      A. Evidence Supporting Murder Allegation

      In his first issue, appellant argues the trial court erred by concluding the

State’s evidence is sufficient to find the allegation of murder as alleged in the State’s

amended motions to revoke to be true. The State’s amended motions allege appellant

violated Condition A of his community supervision by, among other things,

committing murder. The State responds that appellant failed to challenge all

violations the trial court found to be true and, accordingly, he has not met his burden

on appeal and, alternatively, the evidence is sufficient to support the trial court’s

finding. We agree with the State.

      We review an order revoking community supervision for an abuse of

discretion. Dansby v. State, 468 S.W.3d 225, 231 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2015, no pet.).

The State has the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the

defendant violated a term of his community supervision. Rickels v. State, 202

S.W.3d 759, 763–64 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). If the State fails to meet its burden of

proof, the trial court abuses its discretion by revoking the community supervision.

Dansby, 468 S.W.3d at 231. Proof of a single violation of community supervision is

                                          –3–
sufficient to support revocation. Garcia v. State, 387 S.W.3d 20, 26 (Tex. Crim.

App. 2012); Olabode v. State, 575 S.W.3d 878, 880 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2019, pet.

ref’d). We must affirm a trial court’s judgment if an appellant does not challenge

each ground on which the trial court revoked community supervision. Olabode, 575

S.W.3d at 880–81.

      The trial court found appellant violated three conditions of his community

supervision: Conditions A, C, and R. However, appellant only challenges the

sufficiency of the evidence supporting the finding as to Condition A. Because

appellant does not challenge each ground on which the trial court revoked his

community supervision, we must affirm. See id. We overrule appellant’s first issue.

      B. Voluntariness of Plea

      In his second issue, appellant argues his plea was not voluntary. Appellant

initially entered into a plea bargain in each case in response to the State’s motions

to revoke his community supervision. However, the State then filed its amended

motions to revoke in which it alleged he violated Condition A by committing

murder. Appellant’s brief states: “Being not guilty of the murder charge and

requesting to contest it subjected Appellant to exposure on sentencing in these

matters he otherwise would not have been. Without the murder charge . . . , Appellant

would have accepted the original offer. Because the Defendant was placed in a catch

twenty-two position of having to pled not true to the murder charge, this in essence

made his plea involuntary.” Appellant cites no authority to support his argument.

                                        –4–
See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i). The State responds that appellant failed to preserve his

complaint for review. We agree with the State.

      The record does not show appellant raised this complaint in the trial court.

Rather, during the October 11, 2021 proceeding to adjudicate guilt, appellant was

permitted to withdraw his plea that he entered in July 2021 and proceed with an

adjudication of guilt. Appellant, who was represented by counsel, never argued his

plea was involuntary. Having reviewed the record, we conclude appellant failed to

raise this objection in the trial court and, accordingly, he has not preserved it for our

review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1. We overrule appellant’s second issue.

      C. Conclusion

      We affirm the trial court’s judgments.

                                             /Erin A. Nowell//
                                             ERIN A. NOWELL
                                             JUSTICE

210941f.u05
210942f.u05
Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b)

                                          –5–
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                 JUDGMENT

MITCHELL WAYNE AUSTIN,                       On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial
Appellant                                    District Court, Dallas County, Texas
                                             Trial Court Cause No. F-1770576-T.
No. 05-21-00941-CR          V.               Opinion delivered by Justice Nowell.
                                             Justices Goldstein and Breedlove
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                 participating.

    Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 13th day of June, 2023.

                                       –6–
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                 JUDGMENT

MITCHELL WAYNE AUSTIN,                       On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial
Appellant                                    District Court, Dallas County, Texas
                                             Trial Court Cause No. F-1258000-T.
No. 05-21-00942-CR          V.               Opinion delivered by Justice Nowell.
                                             Justices Goldstein and Breedlove
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee                 participating.

    Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is
AFFIRMED.

Judgment entered this 13th day of June, 2023.

                                       –7–