Opinion
Nos. 05-09-00390-CR, 05-09-00391-CR
Opinion issued March 31, 2010. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47.
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2 Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. F06-64445-LI, F06-66313-SI.
Before Justices MORRIS, FITZGERALD, and FRANCIS.
OPINION
Jerry Lenez Bangmon appeals following the adjudication of his guilt for assault-family violence and aggravated kidnapping. In three points of error, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his community supervision and adjudicating his guilt in each case. We affirm the trial court's judgments. Appellant waived a jury and pleaded guilty to assault-family violence, and with a prior conviction for assault-family violence, and to aggravated kidnapping. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 20.04(a), (b), 22.01(a) (Vernon 2003 Supp. 2009). Pursuant to plea agreements, the trial court deferred adjudicating guilt, placed appellant on eight years' community supervision, and assessed a $1000 fine in each case. The State later moved to adjudicate, alleging appellant violated the terms of his community supervision. Appellant pleaded true to the allegations in a hearing on the motions. The trial court granted the motions, adjudicated appellant guilty in each case, and assessed punishment at ten years' and thirty years' imprisonment, respectively. Appellate review of an order revoking community supervision is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its discretion. See Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). An order revoking probation must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning the greater weight of the credible evidence which would create a reasonable belief that the defendant has violated a condition of probation. Id. at 763-64. A finding of a single violation of community supervision is sufficient to support revocation. See Sanchez v. State, 603 S.W.2d 869, 871 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). Thus, in order to prevail, appellant must successfully challenge all the findings that support the revocation order. See Jones v. State, 571 S.W.2d 191, 193-94 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). In his first and second points of error, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his community supervision and adjudicating his guilt in each case because the evidence was insufficient to prove he was able to pay the fines, fees, and court-ordered programs. Appellant also argues that in the alternative, this court should modify the trial court's written judgments to reflect the specific allegations that appellant was found to have violated. The State responds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking appellant's community supervision. There is no requirement that a trial court's written judgment recite the specific conditions found to have been violated from among several conditions. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 23 (Vernon Supp. 2009). At the hearing, appellant pleaded true to all of the allegations, including testing positive for cocaine and failing to report for one year. A plea of true to any violation, standing alone, supports revocation of community supervision. See Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979). The trial court heard testimony from appellant that he binged on cocaine for six days while on community supervision, and he did not report because he lost his job and could not pay the fines, fees, or the domestic violence and drug treatment programs. Because appellant entered pleas of true, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking appellant's community supervision in each case. See Rickels, 202 S.W.3d at 763-64; Cole, 578 S.W.2d at 128. We overrule appellant's first and second points of error. In his third point of error, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion by not permitting him to withdraw his pleas of true because he testified the positive cocaine test was due to his "drug patch" peeling off, and his failure to report was directly related to his inability to pay fines, fees, and for court-ordered programs. There is no duty on a trial court to withdraw a plea of true in a revocation of community supervision proceeding even if a probationer presents a defensive issue. See Moses v. State, 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). We overrule appellant's third point of error. In each case, we affirm the trial court's judgment.