Opinion
No. 05-09-00356-CR
Opinion issued November 30, 2009. DO NOT PUBLISH. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.
On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F07-45889-KW.
Before Justices MOSELEY, RICHTER, and FRANCIS.
OPINION
Mark Edward Bolin appeals from his conviction for robbery. After revoking appellant's community supervision, the trial court assessed punishment at five years in prison. In a single issue, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his community supervision. We affirm the trial court's judgment. Appellant waived a jury and pleaded guilty to robbery. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial court assessed punishment at eight years in prison, probated for four years. The State later moved to revoke appellant's community supervision, alleging he violated two conditions of community supervision. Appellant pleaded true to the allegations in a hearing on the motion. After hearing appellant's testimony, the trial court found the allegations true, revoked appellant's community supervision, and assessed punishment at five years in prison. 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). In determining questions concerning sufficiency of the evidence in probation revocation cases, the burden of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. 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 of 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 sole issue on appeal, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his community supervision because the evidence was insufficient to show he violated any of the conditions of community supervision alleged in the motion. Appellant asserts his pleas of true were to certain facts in the allegations, but were not pleas of true to the violations. Appellant argues that because his testimony showed he rescheduled his reporting date by telephone, and he had only been arrested and charged with an offense but not yet convicted, the evidence was insufficient to support the revocation. The State responds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking appellant's community supervision because appellant entered pleas of true to the allegations. In its motion to revoke, the State alleged appellant violated the terms of his community supervision by (1) violating the law of the State of Texas by being arrested and charged with the offense of driving while license suspended, and (2) failing to report on February 4, 2009. Appellant pleaded true to both allegations. Appellant's signed plea of true and stipulation of evidence was admitted into evidence. A plea of true, standing alone, supports revocation of community supervision. See Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979). Because appellant entered a plea of true, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking appellant's community supervision. See Rickels, 202 S.W.3d at 763-64; Cole, 578 S.W.2d at 128. We overrule appellant's sole issue. We affirm the trial court's judgment.