Opinion
Nos. 05-11-00445-CR, 05-11-00446-CR
Opinion Filed August 10, 2011. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47
On Appeal from the 59th Judicial District Court, Grayson County, Texas, Trial Court Cause Nos. 057154, 057155.
Before Justices BRIDGES, LANG-MIERS, and MURPHY.
OPINION
Joel Damon Finley appeals the revocation of his community supervision in these two cases. In a single issue, appellant contends the evidence is insufficient to support the revocations. We affirm the trial court's judgments. In each case, appellant waived a jury and pleaded guilty to the felony assault involving family violence. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01(a)(1) (West 2011); Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 71.004(1) (West 2008). Appellant also pleaded true to the enhancement paragraphs contained in each indictment. Pursuant to plea agreements, the trial court found appellant guilty and assessed punishment in each case at ten years' imprisonment, probated for six years, and a $1,000 fine. The State later moved to revoke community supervision, alleging appellant violated numerous conditions of his community supervision, including committing new assault and public intoxication offenses. At the beginning of the revocation hearing, the State abandoned the paragraphs (A) and (D) in the amended motion to revoke, which alleged the public intoxication offense and testing positive for opiates. The trial court then heard testimony regarding the remaining violations. At the conclusion of the hearing, the judge found appellant violated the conditions of community supervision as alleged in paragraphs (B), (C), (E), (F), (G), (H), and (I), revoked appellant's community supervision, and sentenced him to eight years' imprisonment in each case. In one issue, appellant contends the evidence is insufficient to show he committed the new assault offense. He also summarily asserts the evidence does not support revocation on the basis of his failure to successfully complete House of Hope, Homeward Bound drug program, complete community service hours, or pay his probations. In response, the State asserts appellant has not challenged the finding he violated the condition that he attend Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings three times per week. The State contends that because proof of one violation is sufficient, the trial court's judgments should be affirmed. We agree with the State. 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). An order revoking community supervision must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 763-64. Proof of 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. [Panel Op.] 1980). Thus, in order to prevail, appellant must successfully challenge all 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 paragraph (I), the State alleged appellant violated his community supervision by failing to attend AA meetings "3 times per week." Steven Hollowell, appellant's community supervision officer, testified it was a condition of appellant's supervision that appellant attend AA meetings three times per week. Hollowell testified appellant would attend the meetings "sporadically, maybe one or two times a week." Hollowell did not believe appellant was attending the meetings every week. Hollowell testified that when he discussed with appellant the non-compliance issues, appellant never gave Hollowell a valid reason for not complying with his community supervision conditions. At the conclusion of the hearing, the judge found appellant violated the conditions of probation as alleged, including condition (I). Appellant does not challenge this finding on appeal, and proof of one violation is sufficient to support the revocation of community supervision. See Sanchez, 603 S.W2d at 871; Jones, 571 S.W.2d at 193-94. We resolve appellant's issue against him. We affirm the trial court's judgments.
Three enhancement paragraphs were alleged, but the conviction date for each prior felony was the same: March 11, 2002. The trial judge made a finding of true as to one prior conviction for enhancement purposes.