Opinion
No. 12-07-00405-CR
Opinion delivered July 2, 2008. DO NOT PUBLISH
Appeal from the 294th Judicial District Court of Van Zandt County, Texas.
Panel consisted of WORTHEN, C.J., GRIFFITH, J., and HOYLE, J.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Chris Gerald Killgo appeals the trial court's revocation of his probation and adjudication of his guilt. In two issues, Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation based upon insufficient evidence. We affirm.
Background
On May 4, 2006, Appellant pleaded guilty to the aggravated sexual assault of a child. The trial court deferred the adjudication of Appellant's guilt and ordered ten years probation. On January 25, 2007, the State moved for the trial court to revoke Appellant's probation and adjudicate his guilt. A hearing was held and the trial court found that Appellant had violated several conditions of his probation. The trial court subsequently revoked Appellant's probation and adjudicated the aggravated sexual assault of a child charge, finding him guilty and assessing his punishment at fifty years of imprisonment and a $10,000 fine. The trial court subsequently signed a judgment that contained a written finding that Appellant had violated eight conditions of his probation. This appeal followed.Revocation of Probation
In two issues, Appellant asserts that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his probation based upon insufficient evidence. However, Appellant has limited these issues to one argument:Specifically, the State failed to prove [by sufficient evidence] that Appellant was able to pay but failed to pay financial obligations during the months of June to December 2006.The briefs submitted by Appellant and the State reflect that, of the eight conditions the trial court found Appellant had violated, six of those related to "financial obligations." It is undisputed that the remaining two conditions related to performing community service and submitting to a polygraph examination. Therefore, Appellant requests that we reverse the trial court's judgment despite the fact that two of the supporting findings contained in that judgment have not been challenged.
"Appellate review of an order revoking probation is limited to abuse of the trial court's discretion." Rickels v. State , 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006) (quoting Cardona v. State , 665 S.W.2d 492, 493 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984)). Where the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a trial court's decision to revoke probation is challenged, a trial court does not abuse its discretion if the greater weight of credible evidence creates a reasonable belief that the defendant violated a condition of his probation. See Rickels , 202 S.W.3d at 763-64; Scamardo v. State , 517 S.W.2d 293, 298 (Tex.Crim.App. 1974). In cases where the trial court revokes probation based upon findings that a defendant violated more than one condition of probation, such a revocation does not constitute an abuse of discretion where any single finding of a violation is held to be valid. See Moore v. State , 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex.Crim.App. 1980) ("We need not address [the] appellant's other contentions since one sufficient ground for revocation will support the [trial] court's order to revoke probation."); Balli , 530 S.W.2d at 126 ("There being a valid ground to justify revocation, we need not consider [the] appellant's other contention that the evidence showed only a single use of alcohol and did not reflect an injurious or vicious habit in violation of probation."). Appellant has failed to challenge two of the eight probation violations that the trial court found. Because one unchallenged finding of a probation violation is sufficient to support a trial court's revocation of probation, we overrule Appellant's first and second issues.