Gary Manning v. State

NUMBER 13-00-208-CR COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI ___________________________________________________________________ GARY MANNING, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee. ___________________________________________________________________ On appeal from the 347th District Court of Nueces County, Texas. ____________________________________________________________________ O P I N I O N Before Chief Justice Seerden and Justices Dorsey and Rodriguez Opinion by Chief Justice Seerden This is an appeal from the trial court's order revoking community supervision. Gary Manning, appellant, was convicted of murder and sentenced to ten years' confinement, but was placed on community supervision for a period of five years. The State subsequently brought a motion to revoke community supervision, alleging three violations of the terms of appellant's community supervision: that he failed to report to his community supervision officer as directed; that he failed to report a change of residence; and that he failed to satisfy the requirements imposed by a substance abuse aftercare program. Appellant pleaded true to all of the allegations in the State's motion. After a hearing, the trial court signed an order revoking community supervision. At the hearing on the State's motion, appellant stated that he did not report as required because of "the pressure of the trial at the time" and because he had been "broken down" while in substance abuse treatment. Appellant furthermore stated that he had been prescribed an anti-depressant. In offering this testimony, appellant did not argue that either his mental state or the prescription drug caused him to violate the terms of his probation; rather, this evidence was offered in an apparent attempt to mitigate the nature of the violations, expressly in the hope that the court would not revoke his community supervision. A trial court is vested with discretion to revoke an individual's community supervision. Guajardo v. State, 24 S.W.3d 423, 427 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 2000, no pet. h.). Violation of a single condition of community supervision is sufficient to support a trial court's decision to revoke. Id. (citing Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 925 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980)). Standing alone, a plea of true is sufficient to support the trial court's order of revocation. See Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979); Guajardo, 924 S.W.2d at 427. Appellant pleaded true to all three alleged violations. He presented mitigating evidence, but at no point did appellant disavow his pleas of true. These pleas adequately support the trial court's determination that appellant violated at least one condition of his community supervision. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking appellant's community supervision. The order of the trial court is AFFIRMED. ROBERT J. SEERDEN, Chief Justice Do not publish . Tex. R. App. P. 47.3. Opinion delivered and filed this 28th day of December, 2000.