No. 4-06-00135-CR
Delivered and Filed: September 6, 2006. DO NOT PUBLISH.
Appeal from the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, Trial Court No. 2003-CR-6009, Honorable Mary Román, Judge Presiding. Affirmed.
Sitting: Alma L. LÓPEZ, Chief Justice, Catherine STONE, Justice, Sarah B. DUNCAN, Justice.
Opinion by: CATHERINE STONE, Justice.
Eric Mendoza appeals from the revocation of his community supervision and imposition of a two-year sentence and $1,500 fine. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
Background
Mendoza pled guilty to possession of cocaine in the amount of one gram or more but less than four grams, and was assessed a sentence of two years imprisonment and fined $1,500. Mendoza's sentence was suspended, and he was placed on community supervision for a period of two years. The State subsequently filed an original and supplemental motion to revoke Mendoza's community supervision, alleging, among other violations, that Mendoza failed to report to his supervision officer as required by the conditions of his community supervision. During the revocation hearing, Mendoza pled true to failing to report to his supervision officer between the months of January 2005 and December 2005. The trial court revoked Mendoza's community supervision and assessed a two-year term of imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division and fined Mendoza $1,500. Discussion
On appeal, we must decide whether the trial court abused its discretion when it revoked Mendoza's community supervision and imposed on Mendoza the sentence it had originally assessed. Mendoza argues that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his community supervision and assessing the sentence that it did because he "is a father of three children and is engaged to be married; he is a family man, not a violent criminal." Mendoza further argues that the trial court should not have revoked his community supervision when he had a reasonable explanation for not complying with the conditions of his community supervision: he was too scared to report to his supervision officer. Mendoza believes such circumstances required the trial court to continue him on community supervision or give him a reduced sentence. We review a trial court's revocation of community supervision for an abuse of discretion. Jackson v. State, 645 S.W.2d 303, 305 (Tex.Crim.App. 1983). With respect to the revocation, Mendoza's plea of "true" to the alleged violation of his community supervision is alone sufficient to support the trial court's revocation based on its finding that he did in fact violate a condition of his community supervision. Hays v. State, 933 S.W.2d 659, 661 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1996, no pet.). With respect to the two-year prison sentence and $1,500 fine, Mendoza did not object at the time sentence was imposed and has thus failed to preserve any complaint regarding his sentence. Tex.R.App.P. 33.1(a); Mercado v. State, 718 S.W.2d 291, 296 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986). In any event, even if Mendoza did preserve his complaint, a trial court does not abuse its discretion in imposing the sentence originally assessed upon the revocation of community supervision. See Guzman v. State, 923 S.W.2d 792, 799 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1996, no pet.). Conclusion
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.