eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Court of Appeals of Texas
 2005-07

Isaac Dionico Guitron v. State ( 2005 )


Menu:

  •                                                              11th Court of Appeals

                                                                      Eastland, Texas

                                                                            Opinion

     

    Isaac Dionico Guitron

    Appellant

    Vs.                   No.  11-04-00043-CR -- Appeal from Midland County

    State of Texas

    Appellee

     

    Isaac Dionico Guitron was originally convicted of the offense of robbery, and his punishment was assessed at 10 years confinement and a $1,000 fine.  The imposition of the confinement portion of the sentence was suspended, and appellant was placed on community supervision for 10 years.  The State filed a motion to revoke alleging that appellant violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision. After a hearing on the motion, the trial court found that the allegations were true, revoked appellant=s community supervision, and sentenced appellant to 10 years confinement.  We affirm.

    In his first issue on appeal, appellant complains that the trial court erred in finding that he violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision by committing the offense of Aaggravated assault.@[1] Appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court=s finding.  In a community supervision revocation hearing, the State has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a condition of community supervision has been violated.  Jenkins v. State, 740 S.W.2d 435 (Tex.Cr.App.1983).  The trial court is the trier of fact, and it determines the weight and credibility of the testimony.  Garrett v. State, 619 S.W.2d 172  (Tex.Cr.App.1981).  Appellate review of an order revoking community supervision is limited to the issue of whether the trial court abused its discretion.  Flournoy v. State, 589 S.W.2d 705 (Tex.Cr.App.1979).  Proof of one alleged violation is sufficient to support an order revoking community supervision.  McDonald v. State, 608 S.W.2d 192 (Tex.Cr.App.1980); Taylor v. State, 604 S.W.2d 175 (Tex.Cr.App.1980).

    In its motion to revoke, the State alleged that appellant violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision by committing an offense against the laws of this State  in that:

    [O]n or about the 6th day of July 2003 in the County of Grimes and State of Texas, [appellant], did then and there, intentionally, knowingly and recklessly cause bodily injury to Flora Renee Barrientos by grabbing said Flora Renee Barrientos and throwing said person on the floor and choking said Flora Renee Barrientos.

     

    Flora Renee Guitron,[2] appellant=s wife, testified at the hearing that on July 6, 2003, she and appellant got into an argument after returning to their home from a prayer meeting.  Flora testified that appellant knocked her to the floor twice and that he hit her on the head.  Flora further testified that appellant kicked her and choked her.  Flora stated that she was in fear for her life during the assault. Flora also testified that she hit appellant, that appellant requested to leave the house, and that she placed the couch in front of the door to prevent appellant from leaving.  Flora stated that she went to the district attorney=s office in an effort to have the charges against appellant dismissed. 

    Appellant testified at the hearing that on July 6, 2003, he got into an argument with Flora. Appellant admitted that he pushed Flora to the ground and that he choked her and kicked her. The evidence is sufficient to support the trial court=s finding that appellant violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision.  Appellant=s first issue on appeal is overruled.

    In his second issue on appeal, appellant complains that the trial court did not consider the full range of punishment.  At the conclusion of a revocation hearing, the trial court may either continue, modify, or revoke the community supervision.  Flournoy v. State, supra.  Appellant has not shown that the trial court did not consider the full range of punishment in its decision to revoke his community supervision.  Appellant=s second issue on appeal is overruled.

    The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

     

    JIM R. WRIGHT

    JUSTICE

     

    July 28, 2005

    Do not publish.  See TEX.R.APP.P. 47.2(b).

    Panel consists of:  Arnot, C.J., and

    Wright, J., and McCall, J.


    [1]The State alleged in its motion to revoke that appellant violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision by committing an offense against the laws of this State, by failing to report in writing to the Midland County Community Supervision and Corrections Department, and by failing to perform his required community service.  At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found that Athe terms of the allegations were true.@  Appellant complains on appeal only of the trial court=s finding that he committed the offense of Aaggravated assault.@ 

    [2]Flora Renee Guitron was formerly known as Flora Renee Barrientos.