Edward Aloysius Mahan, III v. State of Texas

11th Court of Appeals Eastland, Texas Opinion Edward Aloysius Mahan, III Appellant Vs. No. 11-01-00171-CR B Appeal from Taylor County State of Texas Appellee The trial court convicted appellant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary of a building and assessed his punishment at confinement for 18 months in a state jail facility and a $1,000 fine. Pursuant to the plea bargain agreement, the imposition of the confinement portion of the sentence was suspended; and appellant was placed on community supervision for 3 years. In its amended motion to revoke, the State alleged that appellant committed 20 violations of the terms and conditions of his community supervision. At the hearing on the amended motion to revoke, appellant entered pleas of true to Paragraphs Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 9, and 11 through 20 and not true to Paragraphs Nos. 3 and 10. The State then waived Paragraphs Nos. 3 and 10. The State presented no evidence. After hearing the testimony of appellant and his wife, the trial court found the State=s live allegations to be true, revoked appellant=s community supervision, and imposed the original sentence of confinement for 18 months in a state jail facility. We affirm. In his sole point of error, appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his community supervision because the grounds alleged for revocation were not established by the evidence. Appellant contends that the failure of the State to in some way corroborate his plea of true to the allegations of community supervision violations is analogous to the situation where, in a trial on the merits, the defendant=s confession is not corroborated as in Martinez v. State, 387 S.W.2d 673 (Tex.Cr.App.1965), and McBride v. State, 803 S.W.2d 741 (Tex.App. - Dallas 1990), pet=n dism=d, 819 S.W.2d 552 (Tex.Cr.App.1991). We disagree. Unlike the defendants in Martinez and McBride, appellant had already been convicted of the offense of burglary of a building; and the issue before the trial court was whether or not appellant had complied with the terms and conditions of his community supervision. A plea of true alone is sufficient to support the trial court=s determination to revoke.[1] Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127 (Tex.Cr.App.1979); Moore v. State, 11 S.W.3d 495 (Tex.App. - Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet=n); Hays v. State, 933 S.W.2d 659 (Tex.App. - San Antonio 1996, no pet=n); Burns v. State, 835 S.W.2d 733 (Tex.App. - Corpus Christi 1992, pet=n ref=d); Battles v. State, 626 S.W.2d 149 (Tex.App. - Fort Worth 1981, no pet=n). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking appellant=s community supervision upon his pleas of true.[2] The point of error is overruled. The order of the trial court is affirmed. PER CURIAM November 30, 2001 Do not publish. See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.3(b). Panel consists of: Arnot, C.J., and Wright, J., and McCall, J. [1]The present case is distinguishable from the case cited by appellant. In Biddy v. State, 501 S.W.2d 104 (Tex.Cr.App.1973), the court was not addressing a situation where the defendant entered a plea of true but was concerned that neither his oral confession nor his written statement contained sufficient facts to show that a violation had occurred. [2]Moreover, we note that appellant testified that he had Astayed clean and out of trouble for about eight months@ but then Aslipped up and started using marijuana again@; that he had failed to make his court-ordered payments; that he was Aout goofing off,@ when he broke into a vehicle at the mall; and that he had not taken community supervision Aseriously when [he] first got it.@ Appellant asked the trial court to give him another chance and to put him on an ankle monitor because his Awife needs somebody there to take care of [his] kids.@