Nos. 05-07-00296-CR, 05-07-00297-CR
Opinion issued September 12, 2007. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47
On Appeal from the 265th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause, Nos. F04-15811-UR, F04-24253-WR.
Before Justices WHITTINGTON, BRIDGES, and LANG-MIERS.
DAVID L. BRIDGES, Justice.
DeAndre Hason Goldman appeals from the revocation of his community supervision. In two issues, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his community supervision and the judgment in the first case should be reformed. We affirm, as modified.
Probation Revocation
Appellant waived a jury and pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery. Pursuant to plea agreements, the trial court assessed punishment at ten years' imprisonment, probated for ten years, and a $1500 fine in each case. The State later moved to revoke appellant's community supervision, alleging he violated the conditions of his community supervision. At a hearing on the motion, appellant pleaded true to the allegations. The trial court found the allegations true, revoked appellant's community supervision, and assessed punishment at ten years' imprisonment in each case. Appellate review of a probation revocation is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its discretion, and we examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's findings. See Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493-94 (Tex.Crim.App. 1984). The State must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, appellant violated the terms and conditions of his probation. Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 874 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993). In a revocation proceeding, the trial judge is the sole trier of the facts, and determines the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to the testimony. See Lee v. State, 952 S.W.2d 894, 897 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1997, no pet.) (en banc). In its motions to revoke, the State alleged appellant violated the conditions of his community supervision by being unsuccessfully discharged from the Substance Abuse Felony Program (SAFP). During the revocation hearing, appellant pleaded true to the allegations in the State's motion to revoke. Appellant's signed stipulation of evidence and plea of true was admitted into evidence without objection. Appellant testified he was in SAFP for eight months and believed he had graduated because he received a certificate of minimal completion. Appellant admitted he had behavior problems while at SAFP, such as using profanity and arguing with other participants. In his first issue, appellant argues the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his community supervision. Appellant asserts that because he had never been in trouble before the two robberies, had family support to help him complete probation, and received a certificate of minimal completion from SAFP, he should have been continued on community supervision. The State responds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking appellant's community supervision. Examining the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's findings, the evidence is sufficient to support revocation of appellant's community supervision. See Cobb, 851 S.W.2d at 874. Appellant testified he did not complete the program at SAFP. Appellant's admission he failed to complete the drug program at SAFP, standing alone, is sufficient to support the trial court's order revoking community supervision. See Watts v. State, 645 S.W.2d 461, 463 (Tex.Crim.App. 1983); Lewis v. State, 195 S.W.3d 205, 209 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2006, no pet.). Because the evidence is sufficient to prove appellant violated a condition of his community supervision, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking appellant's community supervision. See Cardona, 665 S.W.2d at 493-94; Cobb, 851 S.W.2d at 874. We resolve appellant's first issue against him. Modify Judgment
In his second issue, appellant argues the trial court's judgment in cause no. 05-07-00296-CR should be modified to show the correct date he was originally placed on community supervision. The State concedes that the trial court's judgment should be modified to reflect the correct date appellant was originally placed on community supervision. The record shows appellant was originally placed on community supervision on March 7, 2005. The trial court's judgment recites appellant was placed on community supervision on February 23, 2007. Thus, the trial court's judgment is incorrect. We sustain appellant's second issue. We modify the trial court's judgment to show the date appellant was placed on community supervision was March 7, 2005. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State, 865 S.W.2d 26, 27-28 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993); Asberry v. State, 813 S.W.2d 526, 529-30 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1991, pet. ref'd). In cause no. 05-07-00296-CR, we affirm the trial court's judgment as modified. In cause no. 05-07-00297-CR, we affirm the trial court's judgment.