Did Insufficient Evidence Support the Trial Courts Revocation Decision?
In her second point of error, Dunaway contends evidence is insufficient to support the trial court’s decision to revoke her community supervision. More specifically, she argues that, because she only pled true to violating community supervision conditions that had not been recommended by the jury, because those additional conditions (added and imposed by the trial court) were “void,” and because she cannot be lawfully held to have violated a “void” condition of community supervision, then her plea of “true” fails to satisfy the requirement that she violated any properly imposed condition of community supervision that originated with the jury rather than the trial court. As stated above, our law grants exclusive authority to set the terms and conditions of community supervision with the trial court–not the jury. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, 10-12. Accordingly, because such authority resides in the trial court, the trial court could lawfully impose conditions beyond those reco
