GARY DON TATUM v. THE STATE OF TEXAS (2011)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Opinion By Justice Morris

In this case, Gary Don Tatum appeals from the adjudication of his guilt for theft of property.   Appellant contends in a single issue that the trial court erred in imposing a predetermined sentence.   We affirm.   The background of the case and the evidence admitted at trial are well known to the parties, and we therefore limit recitation of the facts.   We issue this memorandum opinion pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.4 because the law to be applied in the case is well settled.

Appellant waived a jury and pleaded guilty to theft of property valued at $200,000 or more.   The trial court deferred adjudicating guilt, placed appellant on ten years' community supervision, and ordered $107,167 in restitution.   The State later moved to adjudicate guilt, alleging appellant had violated four conditions of his community supervision.   In a hearing on the motion, the trial court admonished appellant about the full range of punishment applicable to the offense, including the option of continuing appellant's community supervision.   Appellant pleaded true to violating two of the four conditions.   The trial court found all the allegations true, adjudicated appellant guilty, and assessed punishment at twenty-five years' imprisonment.

In his sole issue, appellant contends the trial court denied him due process by failing to consider anything other than a sentence of imprisonment because the judge implied that she was giving appellant only one chance at community supervision during the original plea hearing.   Appellant asserts that despite a mental health professional's recommendation for treatment and appellant's own desire for treatment, the trial court imposed a lengthy prison term without considering continued community supervision and treatment.   Nothing in the record shows the trial court failed to consider the full range of punishment or act impartially.   See Brumit v. State, 206 S.W.3d 639, 645 (Tex.Crim.App.2006).   We resolve appellant's sole issue against him.

We affirm the trial court's judgment adjudicating guilt.

JOSEPH B. MORRIS JUSTICE