Opinion
No. 10-03-00069-CR
Opinion delivered and filed September 22, 2004. DO NOT PUBLISH.
Appeal from the 272nd District Court, Brazos County, Texas, Trial Court # 28514-272. Affirmed.
Stephen A. Gustitis, Attorney at Law, Bryan, TX, for Appellant. Douglas Howell, III, Brazos County Asst. District Attorney, Bryan, TX, for Appellee.
Before Chief Justice GRAY, Justice VANCE, and Justice REYNA.
MEMORANDUM Opinion
This appeal concerns the revocation of Appellant's community supervision imposed after her conviction for injury to a child. We will affirm. 1. In Appellant's first issue, she contends that the trial court erred in finding that Appellant understood the conditions of her community supervision at the times of her violations of those conditions. To the extent that Appellant frames an insanity argument, Appellant forfeited the affirmative defense of insanity by failing to raise it in the trial court. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 8.01(a) (Vernon 2003); TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 46.03, § 2 (Vernon Supp. 2004). Appellant cites cases on conditions held to be unenforceably vague. See Greathouse v. State, 33 S.W.3d 455, 459 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. ref'd); Todd v. State, 911 S.W.2d 807, 817 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1995, no pet.). She apparently argues that she was not able to understand the conditions of her community supervision at the times that she violated them because of a "mental disfunction." She points to evidence that she had been diagnosed with "schizophrenic disorder" and had been admitted to the Austin State Hospital. The trial court heard evidence that Appellant's community supervision officer explained the conditions of her community supervision to her more than once. The same officer testified that Appellant understood that it was a condition of her community supervision that she not violate the law. The trial court implicitly took judicial notice of Appellant's voluminous correspondence with the court, in which, the court found, Appellant demonstrated rationality. Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's findings, Appellant does not show that the trial court abused its discretion in finding by the preponderance of the evidence that Appellant understood the conditions of her community supervision at the time she violated them. See Garrett v. State, 619 S.W.2d 172, 174 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1981). We overrule Appellant's first issue. 2. In Appellant's second issue, she contends that the trial court erred in finding that Appellant violated one of the conditions of her community supervision. Appellant challenges only the trial court's finding that Appellant violated the condition that she not violate the law. Appellant does not challenge the trial court's findings that she violated the other conditions as alleged in the motion to revoke. Although the trial court's oral pronouncement of revocation differed from its written judgment, its controlling, written judgment found that Appellant violated several conditions. See Coffey v. State, 979 S.W.2d 326, 328 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998). The violation of one condition of community supervision is sufficient to revoke it. See Sanchez v. State, 603 S.W.2d 869, 871 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1980). We overrule Appellant's second issue. Having overruled Appellant's issues, we affirm the judgment.