Opinion
Nos. 09-04-419 CR, 09-04-420 CR, 09-04-421 CR
Submitted on May 26, 2005.
Opinion Delivered July 13, 2005. DO NOT PUBLISH.
On Appeal from the 252nd District Court Jefferson County, Texas, Trial Cause Nos. 88714, 88715, 88807. Affirmed.
Before McKEITHEN, C.J., GAULTNEY, and KREGER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Roland Cardenas pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea bargain in three separate causes. Cause number 88714 (No. 09-04-00419-CR on appeal) charged burglary of a habitation, and cause numbers 88715 and 88807 (Nos. 09-04-00420-CR and 09-04-00421-CR, respectively, on appeal) charged burglary of a building. As to the burglary of a habitation, the terms of the plea agreement were: a fine in the amount of $500, confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, for a term of ten years, and concurrent sentencing with cause numbers 88715 and 88807. The sentence was probated and Cardenas placed under community supervision for ten years. Regarding the two cases of burglary of a building, the terms of the plea agreements were: a fine in the amount of $500, confinement in a state jail facility for a term of two years, and concurrent sentencing with the other two causes. Both sentences were probated and Cardenas placed under community supervision for five years. Subsequently, in each cause, the State filed a Motion to Revoke Community Supervision. Cardenas pleaded true to failure to report and the trial court granted the State's motion in all three causes. In cause 88714 Cardenas was sentenced to confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, for a term of ten years and ordered to pay $30 restitution and $2,370 reparation. In causes 88715 and 88807 Cardenas was sentenced to confinement in a state jail facility for a term of two years. Additionally, in cause 88715 Cardenas was ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $1,000 and reparation in the amount of $950. In cause 88807, Cardenas was ordered to pay $2,136.70 restitution and $950 reparation. All three sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Cardenas filed a notice of appeal from all three judgments. A sole and identical issue is raised in each case. Cardenas contends the community supervision order was vague and insufficient to apprise him of his reporting dates. This allegation concerns appellant's conviction and punishment, not the revocation of his community supervision. "Therefore, these matters should have been raised by timely appeal after he was placed on community supervision. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 23(b) [(Vernon Supp. 2005)]; Simpson v. State, 772 S.W.2d 276, 277-78 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1989, no pet.) (allowing appeal of community supervision conditions directly after conditions were imposed)." Anthony v. State, 962 S.W.2d 242, 246 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1998, no pet.). Cardenas' sole issue is overruled and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.