Opinion
No. 11-15-00104-CR
02-04-2016
DARRELL GREEN, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the 244th District Court Ector County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. C-40,673
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Darrell Green originally pleaded guilty to the second-degree felony offense of robbery, and in accordance with a plea bargain agreement, the trial court deferred the adjudication of Appellant's guilt and placed him on community supervision. The trial court subsequently adjudicated Appellant guilty of robbery and found as "true" the State's four allegations that Appellant had violated the conditions of his community supervision. The trial court then assessed punishment at confinement for thirteen years with a fine of $5,000 and sentenced Appellant accordingly. Appellant asserts four issues on appeal. We affirm.
TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 29.02 (West 2011).
I. The Charged Offense
Appellant pleaded guilty to the second-degree felony offense of robbery. Penal § 29.02. The trial court deferred adjudication of his guilt and placed him on community supervision for five years. Appellant's community supervision required, among other things, that he report each month, that he pay the assessed fees, that he not possess firearms, and that he not commit any state or federal offenses. Subsequently, the State moved to adjudicate Appellant's guilt and asserted that he violated these four conditions of his community supervision when he failed to report and pay fees, possessed a firearm, and evaded arrest. Appellant pleaded "not true" to all four alleged violations.
II. Evidence at Hearing
Jeffery Ray Strain, a Texas Ranger, investigated a shooting that involved an officer. Ranger Strain learned that the suspect of the shooting had an outstanding "blue" warrant for an alleged parole violation. He identified the suspect as Appellant. During an interview with Ranger Strain about the shooting incident, Appellant admitted that he had possessed a firearm and that he had evaded arrest.
Burleigh Locklar Jr., another Texas Ranger, searched the car in which Appellant had fled after the shooting incident. Ranger Locklar found and photographed a revolver that was located in the backseat of the car. --------
Kelton Smith, the owner of the convenience store where the shooting took place, testified that he had known Appellant for a number of years. After Smith heard gunshots, he saw Appellant run into the store with a firearm.
Chad A. Matlock, an agent with the Criminal Investigation Division of the Texas Department of Public Safety at the time of the shooting, testified that he chased Appellant as Appellant fled. Appellant was the passenger in a vehicle that had fled from a number of marked, law enforcement vehicles. Appellant subsequently left the car and fled on foot. Officer Matlock pursued Appellant on foot, identified himself, and ordered Appellant to stop. Eventually, Appellant was detained and arrested for evading arrest.
April Lollar, Appellant's community supervision officer, also testified that Appellant failed to report and failed to pay supervision fees. Appellant failed to report in person on the specified dates and failed to report in writing when detained. Lollar testified that, because of Appellant's failure to report and failure to pay supervision fees, she filed a motion to adjudicate two days before the shooting occurred.
III. Issues Presented
Appellant asserts that, because there was insufficient evidence to prove that he violated the conditions of his community supervision, the trial court abused its discretion when it revoked his community supervision.
IV. Standard of Review
We review a trial court's decision to revoke community supervision for an abuse of discretion. Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). The State must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed a violation of the conditions of his community supervision. Id. at 763-64; Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). If the State fails to meet its burden of proof, the trial court abuses its discretion if it revokes the community supervision. Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493-94 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). The trial court is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony in a revocation proceeding, and we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the decision of the trial court. Garrett v. State, 619 S.W.2d 172, 174 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1981); Taylor v. State, 604 S.W.2d 175, 179 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980). A trial court may revoke a defendant's community supervision with sufficient proof of one violation of the conditions of his community supervision. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 42.12, § 5(b) (West Supp. 2015); Sanchez v. State, 603 S.W.2d 869, 871 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980); Hart v. State, 264 S.W.3d 364, 367 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2008, pet. ref'd).
V. Analysis
Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he committed any of the four alleged violations of his community supervision. We will address Appellant's argument that there was insufficient evidence to prove that he possessed a firearm. Proof of one violation of a condition of community supervision is sufficient for the trial court to revoke community supervision. Sanchez, 603 S.W.2d at 871. Because the standard of review is abuse of discretion, the record must simply contain some evidence to support the decision made by the trial court. Herald v. State, 67 S.W.3d 292, 293 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, no pet.). Smith, the convenience store owner who personally knew Appellant, saw Appellant in his store with a firearm. Ranger Locklar found and photographed a revolver in the backseat of the car that Appellant had exited when he fled from law enforcement. Appellant admitted to Ranger Strain that he had possessed a firearm.
After a review of the evidence in the light most favorable to the decision of the trial court, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Appellant violated a condition of his community supervision by possessing a firearm. We overrule Appellant's third issue on appeal. Because sufficient evidence proved that Appellant committed at least one violation of the conditions of his community supervision, we need not address Appellant's remaining issues. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1.
VI. This Court's Ruling
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
MIKE WILLSON
JUSTICE February 4, 2016 Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,
Willson, J., and Bailey, J.