Opinion
No. 05-02-01958-CR
Opinion issued July 9, 2003 Do Not Publish
On Appeal from the 219th District Court, Collin County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. 219-80075-02. AFFIRMED
Before Justices JAMES, FRANCIS, and LANG.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Thomas Thanh Pham appeals the revocation of his community supervision. Appellant pled guilty to securing execution of a document by deception. The court sentenced appellant to seven years confinement and ordered him to pay $10,075.00 in restitution. The court suspended appellant's sentence and placed appellant on community supervision for five years. The State filed a motion to revoke community supervision. The trial court found appellant violated the terms of his probation when he (a) failed to pay restitution, (b) failed to disclose his probation to a car salesman when appellant purchased a vehicle, (c) attempted to use a check to purchase a vehicle, and (d) committed additional offenses, including twice committing theft of $20,000 or more but less than $100,000, forgery, and terroristic threat. In one point of error, appellant contends the trial court erred in admitting State's Exhibit No. 1, a packet of materials containing a newspaper article appellant asserts was inadmissible hearsay. The facts of this case are known to the parties so we do not recite them here. Further, because all dispositive issues are clearly settled in law, we issue this memorandum opinion pursuant to rule 47.4. See Tex.R.App.P. 47.4. We affirm the trial court's judgment. While proving appellant's attempt to steal a BMW from the Classic BMW dealership by using Tung Nguyen's identity, the State introduced State's Exhibit No. 1, a file from Classic BMW containing the records of appellant's transaction. Contained in the exhibit was a newspaper article about the real Tung Nguyen's business; the article contained a picture of Tung Nguyen. An insurance agent sent the newspaper article to the Classic BMW salesman, who observed that the Tung Nguyen pictured in the article was not the person trying to obtain a $50,000 vehicle. In his sole point of error, appellant contends the newspaper article in State's Exhibit No. 1 constituted inadmissible hearsay. Appellant asserts State's Exhibit No. 1 was admitted under the business-records exception to hearsay, and the newspaper article failed to meet the exception. Appellant argues the newspaper article should have been excluded from the evidence. Hearsay is a statement, not made by the declarant while testifying at trial, offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Tex . R. Evid. 801(d). Hearsay is inadmissible except where provided by statute or the rules of evidence. Tex . R. Evid. 802. Records kept within the normal course of business are not excluded by the hearsay rule. Tex.R.Evid. 803(6). A statement is not hearsay if it is not offered to prove the facts asserted. Bell v. State, 877 S.W.2d 21, 24 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1994, pet. ref'd). "An extra-judicial statement or writing which is offered for the purpose of showing what was said rather than for the truth of the matter stated therein does not constitute hearsay." Dinkins v. State, 894 S.W.2d 330, 347 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995). "An extra-judicial statement or writing may be admitted as circumstantial evidence from which an inference may be drawn, and not for the truth of the matter stated, therein, without violating the hearsay rule." Id. (quoting Gholson v. State, 542 S.W.2d 395, 398 (Tex.Crim.App. 1992)). In Dinkins, the court held an appointment book found at the crime scene was not inadmissible hearsay because the State offered the appointment book not to prove the truth of the matter asserted, but to show the court how the appellant became a suspect. Dinkins, 894 S.W.2d at 347. In this case, the State did not offer the article to assert the truth of the information within the article. Instead, the article was offered to show why Classic BMW became suspicious of appellant and notified the police. Therefore, we conclude the court did not err in admitting the newspaper article because it was not hearsay. Alternatively, even without deciding the article was hearsay, we may still affirm on unchallenged grounds. See State v. Ross, 32 S.W.3d 853, 855-56 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000). Proof of even one violation of the terms of an individual's probation is sufficient to support an order revoking probation. O'Neal v. State, 623 S.W.2d 660, 661 (Tex.Crim.App. 1981); Lee v. State, 952 S.W.2d 894, 900 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1997, no pet.). The record contains evidence of multiple violations of the terms of appellant's probation. We overrule appellant's sole point of error. We affirm the trial court's judgment.