Matilde Ortiz v. State
This text of Matilde Ortiz v. State (Matilde Ortiz v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
NUMBER 13-00-384-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI
__________________________________________________________________
MATILDE ORTIZ, Appellant,
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.
__________________________________________________________________
On appeal from the 103rd District Court of Cameron County, Texas.
__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Hinojosa, Yañez, and Castillo
Opinion by Justice Yañez
Matilde Ortiz appeals the revocation of her community supervision. We affirm.
The State moved to revoke Ortiz's community supervision, alleging that she had violated several conditions of her supervision by: being in possession of cocaine; failing to pay fines, court costs, supervision fees, and reimbursement for a pre-sentence investigation; and failing to report her arrest for cocaine possession within ten days of the arrest. Ortiz pleaded true to the failure to report her arrest. Ortiz challenges the revocation of her community supervision with three points of error.
A trial court is vested with discretion to revoke an individual's community supervision. Herrera v. State, 951 S.W.2d 197, 199 (Tex. App.--Corpus Christi 1997, no pet.). Violation of a single condition of community supervision is sufficient to support a trial court's decision to revoke. Id. (citing Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 925 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980)). Standing alone, a plea of true is sufficient to support the trial court's order of revocation. Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979).
On appeal, Ortiz raises no challenge to her plea of true as to her failure to report her arrest to her community supervision
officer. This plea is sufficient to support revocation. The judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
LINDA REYNA YAÑEZ
Justice
Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.3.
Opinion delivered and filed this the
12th day of July, 2001.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Matilde Ortiz v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matilde-ortiz-v-state-texapp-2001.