Summary
The Fourth Court of Appeals of San Antonio affirmed the revocation of Anna Marie Marroquin’s community supervision and her concurrent two-year sentences. The court held that Marroquin failed to preserve her challenge to the voluntariness of her plea of true and could not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting revocation after entering that plea. The court also rejected her due process and Confrontation Clause arguments.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Marroquin preserved a challenge that her plea of true to the community-supervision violation was not knowing, voluntary, or intelligent.
- Whether Marroquin could challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting revocation, or assert due-process and Confrontation Clause violations, after pleading true and failing to object in the trial court.
Holdings
- A challenge to the voluntariness of a plea must be raised in the trial court to preserve it for appellate review. Because Marroquin did not object, seek withdrawal of her plea, move for a new trial, or otherwise alert the trial court to the alleged involuntariness, the issue was not preserved.
- When a defendant pleads true to a community-supervision violation, the sufficiency of the evidence supporting revocation may not be challenged.
- Marroquin could not obtain reversal based on alleged unsubstantiated hearsay or facts assumed by the trial court because the revocation was based on her plea of true, not on the challenged hearsay, and she did not preserve the asserted grounds in the trial court.
Key quotations
“A “plea of true, standing alone is sufficient to support the revocation of probation.”” (-2-)
““[W]hen a plea of true is made, the sufficiency of the evidence may not be challenged.”” (-3-)
Factual background
In 2020, Marroquin pleaded no contest to two third-degree felonies and received concurrent two-year sentences probated over three years of community supervision. In August 2023, the State moved to revoke supervision based on alleged violations, including failure to report to her supervision officer. At the revocation hearing, Marroquin pleaded true to the failure-to-report violation, and the court revoked supervision and imposed concurrent two-year terms of confinement. Marroquin made no objections and did not move to withdraw her plea or seek a new trial.
Procedural history
Marroquin pleaded no contest to injury to a disabled person causing bodily injury and possession of a controlled substance. The trial court placed her on concurrent three-year terms of community supervision. After the State moved to revoke supervision, Marroquin pleaded true to failing to report to her supervision officer, and the trial court revoked supervision and imposed concurrent two-year sentences. She appealed only in the possession case, raising challenges to the voluntariness of her plea and to alleged hearsay and evidentiary deficiencies.