Tammara Gaye Ferron v. State

Court of Appeals of Texas

Tammara Gaye Ferron v. State

DecidedApril 11, 2002

Docket03-01-00667-CR

StatusPublished

This text of Tammara Gaye Ferron v. State (Tammara Gaye Ferron 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.

Bluebook

Tammara Gaye Ferron v. State, (Tex. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-01-00667-CR Tamarra Gaye Ferron, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 42,328, HONORABLE JOE CARROLL, JUDGE PRESIDING

Appellant Tamarra Gaye Ferron pleaded guilty to felony theft and was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision. The district court later adjudicated Ferron guilty but continued her supervision. Most recently, the court revoked supervision and imposed sentence of three years' imprisonment. On appeal from the revocation order, Ferron contends that two of the supervisory conditions she was found to have violated were invalid. She further contends that the remaining violations, all having to do with the failure to pay fees and costs, were not proved.

Ferron argues that the State failed to prove that she intentionally failed to pay the required fees and costs. See Ortega v. State, 860 S.W.2d 561, 567 (Tex. App.--Austin 1993, no pet.). Ferron pleaded true to all the probationary violations alleged in the State's motion to revoke. The plea of true was sufficient to support revocation. Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). The sufficiency of the evidence cannot be challenged in the face of a plea of true. Rincon v. State, 615 S.W.2d 746, 747 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). In the cases on which Ferron relies, the probationer did not admit the alleged nonpayment of fees. See id. at 563; Washington v. State, 731 S.W.2d 648, 649 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, no pet.). Point of error two is overruled.

One sufficient ground for revocation will support the trial court's order. Taylor v. State, 604 S.W.2d 175, 180 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). Therefore, we need not address Ferron's challenge to the validity of the remaining supervisory conditions.

The order revoking community supervision is affirmed.

__________________________________________

Bea Ann Smith, Justice

Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices B. A. Smith and Yeakel

Affirmed

Filed: April 11, 2002

Do Not Publish

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-01-00667-CR Tamarra Gaye Ferron, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY, 264TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 42,328, HONORABLE JOE CARROLL, JUDGE PRESIDING

Appellant Tamarra Gaye Ferron pleaded guilty to felony theft and was placed on deferred adjudication community supervision. The district court later adjudicated Ferron guilty but continued her supervision. Most recently, the court revoked supervision and imposed sentence of three years' imprisonment. On appeal from the revocation order, Ferron contends that two of the supervisory conditions she was found to have violated were invalid. She further contends that the remaining violations, all having to do with the failure to pay fees and costs, were not proved.

Ferron argues that the State failed to prove that she intentionally failed to pay the required fees and costs. See Ortega v. State, 860 S.W.2d 561, 567 (Tex. App.--Austin 1993, no pet.). Ferron pleaded true to all the probationary violations alleged in the State's motion to revoke. The plea of true was sufficient to support revocation. Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). The sufficiency of the evidence cannot be challenged in the face of a plea of true. Rincon v. State, 615 S.W.2d 746, 747 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). In the cases on which Ferron relies, the probationer did not admit the alleged nonpayment of fees. See id. at 563; Washington v. State, 731 S.W.2d 648, 649 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1987, no pet.). Point of error two is overruled.

One sufficient ground for revocation will support the trial court's order. Taylor v. State, 604 S.W.2d 175, 180 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). Therefore, we need not address Ferron's challenge to the validity of the remaining supervisory conditions.

The order revoking community supervision is affirmed.

__________________________________________

Bea Ann Smith, Justice

Before Chief Justice Aboussie, Justices B. A. Smith and Yeakel

Affirmed

Filed: April 11, 2002

Do Not Publish

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Tammara Gaye Ferron v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tammara-gaye-ferron-v-state-texapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack