Theodore Gallia v. State ( 2010 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-09-00372-CR
No. 10-09-00373-CR
THEODORE GALLIA,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 66th District Court
Hill County, Texas
Trial Court Nos. 31,931 and 34,276
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Theodore Paul Gallia, Jr. appeals from his convictions based on a motion to
adjudicate and a motion to revoke his community supervision. Gallia, Jr. was placed on
deferred adjudication community supervision for ten years for the offense of attempted
manufacture of methamphetamine of more than four but less than two hundred grams
on January 10, 2002. He was subsequently placed on a ten year sentence that was
probated for ten years for the offense of unlawful possession of a firearm on March 27,
2006. The State filed a motion to adjudicate and a motion to revoke probation on July 9,
2009, and Gallia, Jr. pled not true to all of the allegations contained in the motions.
After a contested hearing, the trial court found some of the allegations to be true, and
made a finding of guilt on the firearm charge. After a hearing on punishment, the trial
court sentenced Gallia, Jr. to imprisonment for fifteen (15) years in the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice – Institutional Division on the manufacturing charge
and to ten (10) years imprisonment on the weapon charge. Gallia, Jr. complains that the
trial court abused its discretion in revoking his probations and sentencing him to the
terms of imprisonment. Because we find no abuse of discretion, we affirm the
judgment of the trial court.
Gallia, Jr. contends that the trial court erred by not considering his “rehabilitative
qualities” since he was released from SAFPF. However, Gallia, Jr. concedes that he was
sentenced within the ranges of punishment for his two offenses. A trial court has wide
discretion in imposing an appropriate sentence. Jackson v. State, 680 S.W.2d 809, 814
(Tex. Crim. App. 1984). Generally, as long as a sentence is within the range of
punishment and has a factual basis in the record, it will not be disturbed on appeal.
Nunez v. State, 565 S.W.2d 536, 538 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).
Gallia, Jr. does not point to any evidence in the record that shows that the trial
court ignored any portion of the evidence, and we will not presume that the trial court
did so. Gallia, Jr.’s sentences of ten and fifteen years fall within the statutory ranges of
punishment and the fifteen year sentence is below the maximum sentence authorized
by law. Further, the trial court had been involved with Gallia, Jr. throughout the term
of his first term of community supervision, during which Gallia, Jr. was arrested for
Gallia v. State Page 2
multiple felonies and misdemeanors; was unsuccessfully discharged from the last phase
of SAFPF which he had been required to attend based on a previous modification of his
community supervision; and since leaving that program, had failed to submit to drug
tests, to report to his probation officer as required, and to pay his required fees, fines,
and restitution even though he was employed as an electrician. We hold that the trial
court did not abuse its discretion in assessing Gallia, Jr.’s sentences and overrule his
sole point of error.
Conclusion
We find no abuse of discretion in the assessment of Gallia, Jr.’s sentences.
Therefore, the judgments of conviction are affirmed.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Gray,
Justice Reyna, and
Justice Davis
Affirmed
Opinion delivered and filed September 1, 2010
Do not publish
[CR25]
Gallia v. State Page 3