Background
Derrick Wayne Baker pleaded guilty to assault of a pregnant person, a third-degree felony. Under a negotiated plea agreement, the trial court sentenced him to ten years in prison, suspended the sentence, and placed him on community supervision for five years.
The State later sought revocation based on four alleged violations, including new offenses, failure to abstain from alcohol, and failure to complete an outpatient program. At the revocation hearing, the State abandoned the first three allegations, and Baker pleaded “true” to failing to complete the outpatient program. The trial court found that allegation true, revoked community supervision, and imposed an eight-year prison term.
The Court’s Holding
The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed. It explained that the State must prove a community-supervision violation by a preponderance of the evidence and that one proven violation is sufficient to support revocation. A defendant’s plea of “true,” standing alone, is sufficient to establish a violation and sustain the revocation decision.
Baker’s appointed appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and moved to withdraw, concluding that the record presented no meritorious or arguable appellate grounds. Baker did not file a pro se response. After independently reviewing the brief and record, the court agreed that the appeal lacked merit, granted counsel’s motion to withdraw, and affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
Key Takeaways
- Proof of a single violation of a community-supervision condition is sufficient to support revocation.
- A probationer’s plea of “true” to an alleged violation can, by itself, sustain the trial court’s revocation decision.
- After conducting the independent review required in an Anders appeal, the court found no arguable grounds for challenging Baker’s revocation or sentence.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the consequence of pleading “true” at a revocation hearing: even when the State abandons its other allegations, that plea alone may provide a sufficient basis to revoke community supervision.
It also illustrates the appellate court’s role under Anders. The court did not merely accept counsel’s assessment; it independently reviewed the record before determining that the appeal was without merit and permitting counsel to withdraw.