Nicholas Philip Yukich, III v. State ( 2017 )


Menu:
  • Affirmed and Opinion Filed October 19, 2017
    S   In The
    Court of Appeals
    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
    No. 05-16-00710-CR
    NICHOLAS PHILIP YUKICH, III, Appellant
    V.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
    On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court
    Collin County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. 366-82747-2011
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    Before Justices Francis, Myers, and Whitehill
    Opinion by Justice Francis
    Nicholas Philip Yukich, III appeals the trial court’s judgment revoking his community
    supervision and sentencing him to two years in prison. In a single issue, appellant contends the
    trial court abused its discretion by finding the evidence was sufficient to revoke his probation.
    We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
    In April 2013, appellant pleaded guilty to the third degree felony offense of driving while
    intoxicated. According to the plea bargain agreement, the trial court sentenced appellant to six
    years in prison, suspended for four years community supervision. In October 2015, the State
    moved to revoke appellant’s community supervision contending he had violated seven different
    terms of his probation. After a hearing, the court continued and extended appellant’s community
    supervision to September 4, 2018.
    On January 7, 2016, the State filed a second motion to revoke appellant’s community
    supervision. At the hearing on the motion, appellant pleaded true to each of the probation
    violations alleged by the State. The court admonished appellant that his plea was an “open plea”
    with no agreed punishment and the court could either extend his probation again or sentence him
    to between two and six years in prison. Appellant stated he understood and agreed to proceed on
    his pleas and allow the trial court to determine his punishment.
    During the punishment phase of the hearing, the court heard the testimony of two
    probation officers and appellant. The focus of the testimony was the attempted but unsuccessful
    transfer of appellant’s probation to Oklahoma where he was moving for his job. Appellant stated
    that due to the transfer process, he felt “bounced around” and had difficulty fulfilling the terms
    and conditions of his probation. After hearing the evidence, the trial court accepted appellant’s
    pleas and found each of the alleged probation violations to be true. The court then revoked
    appellant’s probation and sentenced him to two years in prison. This appeal followed.
    In a single issue, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his
    community supervision because the evidence did not show he intentionally and knowingly
    violated the terms and conditions of his probation. Appellant argues the transfer process left him
    confused about how to meet the requirements of his community supervision.
    A trial court’s decision to revoke community supervision is reviewed under an abuse of
    discretion standard. See Rickels v. State, 
    202 S.W.3d 759
    , 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). A plea
    of true to an allegation contained in a motion to revoke community supervision, standing alone,
    is sufficient to support a decision to revoke. See Tapia v. State, 
    462 S.W.3d 29
    , 31 n.2 (Tex.
    Crim. App. 2015). Furthermore, a proper finding that a defendant violated any one of the
    conditions of his community supervision is sufficient to support revocation. See Smith v. State,
    
    286 S.W.3d 333
    , 342 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009).
    –2–
    In this case, appellant pleaded true to all of the violations alleged in the State’s motion to
    revoke. This alone is sufficient to support the trial court’s decision. See Tapia, 462 S.W.3d at
    31 n.2. In addition, appellant admitted in his testimony that he violated many of the terms and
    conditions of his probation. Although he argues the attempted transfer of his probation to
    Oklahoma made compliance with residency and reporting requirements difficult, he makes no
    showing as to how he was prevented from fulfilling other terms of his probation including
    obtaining a properly functioning alcohol testing device, completing a Marijuana Intervention
    Program, and paying court costs of $630 within thirty days. Indeed, his testimony at the hearing
    showed that his failure to comply with most of the terms and conditions of his probation was
    largely because they were inconvenient and he had other priorities. We conclude the trial court
    did not abuse its discretion in revoking appellant’s community supervision.
    We affirm the trial court’s judgment.
    /Molly Francis/
    MOLLY FRANCIS
    JUSTICE
    Do Not Publish
    TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1
    160710F.U05
    –3–
    S
    Court of Appeals
    Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
    JUDGMENT
    NICHOLAS PHILIP YUKICH, III,                       On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District
    Appellant                                          Court, Collin County, Texas
    Trial Court Cause No. 366-82747-2011.
    No. 05-16-00710-CR        V.                       Opinion delivered by Justice Francis.
    Justices Myers and Whitehill participating.
    THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
    Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
    Judgment entered October 19, 2017.
    –4–
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-16-00710-CR

Filed Date: 10/19/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/20/2017