Opinion
No. 05-16-00542-CR
04-11-2017
TORRENCE LANARD RENDER, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1 Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F13-70470-H
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Evans, Stoddart, and Boatright
Opinion by Justice Evans
Torrence Lanard Render appeals his conviction following the adjudication of his guilt for the offense of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. In two issues, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion by (1) revoking his community supervision because the evidence was insufficient, and (2) sentencing him to a term of eight years' imprisonment instead of continuing his community supervision. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
BACKGROUND
Appellant was indicted and charged with aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.03 (West 2011). Appellant entered a negotiated guilty plea before the court. Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, the trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed appellant on community supervision for a period of ten years. The State later filed an "Amended Motion to Revoke Probation or Proceed With an Adjudication of Guilt," which sought to revoke appellant's community supervision. The amended motion alleged violations of eight conditions of appellant's community supervision. Appellant entered an open plea of true to all of the violation allegations in the State's amended motion. After hearing appellant's testimony, the trial court accepted appellant's plea of true and found appellant had violated the conditions of his community supervision as alleged. Appellant was sentenced to eight years' imprisonment in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. This appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
In appellant's first issue, he argues that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his community supervision because the evidence is insufficient to support revocation. The determination to proceed with an adjudication of guilt on the original charge is reviewable in the same manner as a revocation hearing. Richardson v. State, No. 05-11-00950-CR, 2012 WL 5350979, at *4 (Tex. App.—Dallas Oct. 31, 2012, pet. ref'd) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (citing TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.12, § 5(b)). We review the trial court's ruling for an abuse of discretion. See Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). The State's burden of proof at a revocation hearing is to show by a preponderance of the evidence that a defendant violated the terms of his community supervision, meaning that the greater weight of the credible evidence must create a reasonable belief that the defendant has violated a condition of his community supervision. See id., 763-64. In reviewing whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding a defendant violated a condition of community supervision, we accept that the trial court resolved conflicts in testimony, weighed the evidence, and drew reasonable inferences in a manner that supports the ruling. See Garrett v. State, 619 S.W.2d 172, 174 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1981).
In its amended motion, the State alleged that appellant violated the following conditions of his community supervision: condition (d) by failing to report to the community supervision office for the months from September, 2015 through March, 2016; condition (e) by failing to give twenty-four hours' notice of changes in appellant's home or employment address; condition (f) by failing to work faithfully at suitable employment; condition (h) by failing to pay court costs and fees; condition (k) by failing to pay the Crime Stoppers payment; condition (l) by failing to participate in drug and alcohol evaluation and treatment program; condition (m) by failing to complete community service hours; and condition (r) by failing to pay restitution.
Appellant entered an open plea of true to all the allegations in the State's amended motion to adjudicate. On appeal, however, appellant only challenges his failure to report; failure to pay costs, restitution and fines; failure to complete a drug evaluation; and failure to work. He does not challenge the trial court's findings of true on his failure to give twenty-four hours' notice of changes in his home or employment address or his failure to complete community service hours. A finding of a single violation of community supervision is sufficient to support revocation. See Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980); Jones v. State, 571 S.W.2d 191 193-94 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). Moreover, a plea of true, standing alone, is sufficient to support revocation of community supervision. See Walker v. State, No. 05-16-00267-CR, 2016 WL 5851885, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Sept. 30, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (citing Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979)). Here, appellant pleaded true to two violations that he has failed to challenge on appeal. Because proof of one violation is sufficient to support the trial court's order revoking community supervision and adjudicating guilt, we do not address appellant's challenges to the other violations. See Sanchez v. State, 603 S.W.2d 869, 871 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980). We overrule appellant's first issue.
In his second issue, appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it sentenced him to a term of eight years' incarceration because the punishment violates the objectives of the penal code. The State contends that appellant has failed to preserve this issue for review. We agree with the State.
To preserve error for appeal, the record must show appellant made a timely request, objection, or motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a); Castaneda v. State, 135 S.W.3d 719, 723 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003, no pet.). Appellant's specific complaint is that the trial court erred and did not provide him an opportunity to continue his rehabilitation when the court revoked his community supervision. When the trial court pronounced his sentence, appellant did not object to the sentence nor did he file a post-trial motion to address his objection. Appellant contends a specific objection was not necessary because it was clear from his testimony and his counsel's argument that he was requesting to continue on community supervision. But even defendants asserting a constitutional challenge based on a disproportionate sentence are not excused from the requirements of error preservation. See id. Appellant's request for community supervision at trial does not does sufficiently apprise the trial court of the alleged error appellant now raises on appeal. Because appellant failed to raise this issue in the trial court, he did not preserve this issue for our review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1.
Even if appellant had preserved error, we would overrule his argument. Rehabilitation is not the only objective of the penal code; deterrence and punishment as necessary to prevent recurrence of criminal behavior are also objectives. See Garza v. State, 05-11-01626-CR, 2013 WL 1683612, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Apr. 18, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication); TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 1.02(1)(A)(C). Consequently, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it sentenced appellant to eight years in prison even if its chosen sentence furthered one objective of the penal code more than another objective.
We resolve appellant's two issues against him. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
/David W. Evans/
DAVID EVANS
JUSTICE Do Not Publish
TEX. R. APP. P. 47 160542F.U05
JUDGMENT
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. F13-70470-H.
Opinion delivered by Justice Evans. Justices Stoddart and Boatright participating.
Based on the Court's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. Judgment entered this 11th day of April, 2017.