Opinion
No. 10-05-00142-CR
Opinion delivered and filed September 21, 2005. DO NOT PUBLISH.
Appeal from the 40th District Court, Ellis County, Texas, Trial Court No. 25748CR. Affirmed.
Before Cheif Justice GRAY, Justice VANCE, and, Justice REYNA (Justice VANCE concurring with note)
"(Justice Vance concurs with a note: I believe that we owe it to the litigants, the higher courts, the Bench and Bar, and the public generally to provide more of the facts and our analysis in memorandum opinions. Although I concur in the judgment, I cannot join this opinion.)"
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Cummins appeals the revocation of his community supervision for third-degree-felony failure to register as a sex offender. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 62.10(a), (b)(2) (Vernon 2004-2005). We affirm. In Cummins's one issue, he contends that the trial court abused its discretion in revoking Cummins's community supervision because of Cummins's failure to pay his community supervision fee, court costs, appointed attorney fees, and fine. An "appellant's plea of true, standing alone, is sufficient to support the revocation of probation." Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1979); accord Aldredge v. State, 703 S.W.2d 354, 355 (Tex.App.-Waco 1985, no pet.). Moreover, "one sufficient ground for revocation will support the court's order to revoke probation." Moore v. State, 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1980); accord Maxey v. State, 49 S.W.3d 582, 584 (Tex.App.-Waco 2001, pet. ref'd). Cummins pleaded true to the State's allegations that he failed to pay community supervision and other fees and to perform community service as ordered by the court as a condition of community supervision, and that he committed a new offense of failure to register as a sex offender. Besides finding that Cummins failed to pay his fees, the trial court also found that Cummins violated the other conditions of community supervision as alleged in the motion to revoke. In any case, "[i]n a community supervision revocation hearing at which it is alleged only that the defendant violated the conditions of community supervision by failing to pay compensation paid to appointed counsel, community supervision fees, [and] court costs, . . . the inability of the defendant to pay as ordered by the judge is an affirmative defense to revocation, which the defendant must prove by a preponderance of evidence." Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 21(c) (Vernon Supp. 2004-2005); see Medlock v. State, 718 S.W.2d 285, 286 (Tex.Crim.App. 1986) (per curiam); Maxey, 49 S.W.3d at 584. Cummins did not raise the inability to pay at trial. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Cummins's community supervision. We overrule Cummins's issue. Having overruled Cummins's sole issue, we affirm.