Opinion
No. 06-08-00014-CR
Date Submitted: February 18, 2009.
Date Decided: February 19, 2009. DO NOT PUBLISH
On Appeal from the 8th Judicial District Court Franklin County, Texas, Trial Court No. 7478.
Before MORRISS, C.J., CARTER and MOSELEY, JJ.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
In 2002, the trial court deferred a finding of guilt on the charge of unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon and released Donald Lee Monroe to community supervision for five years. Monroe's conditions of community supervision included the following:B. Abstain from the possession or use of any alcoholic beverage, controlled substance, narcotic, dangerous drug, inhalant, or prescription without first obtaining a prescription for said substances from a licensed physician;
. . . .
G. Do not change your residence without prior approval from your CSO [community supervision officer] and do not leave the county of your residence without written permission from your CSO;
H. (1) Pay a community supervision fee of $40.00 per month to the 8th Judicial District Community Supervision and Corrections Department (CSCD) on or before the 15[th] day of each month during the period of community supervision beginning with the month immediately following the month you were placed on community supervision; [and]
H. (2) Pay the assessed fine, court cost of $278.00, a court appointed attorney fee of $300.00, and restitution of $0 through the 8th Judicial District CSCD at the rate of $46.00 per month on or before the 15th day of each month until paid in full with the first payment due and payable on or before the 15[th] day of the month following the date of this order. . . .The trial court later amended Monroe's community supervision contract to require a $60.00 monthly supervision fee as part of condition H(1) and a $100.00 monthly fee for court costs and attorney's fees as part of condition H(2).
The State subsequently moved to adjudicate Monroe's guilt for violating the above-referenced conditions as amended. After a contested hearing, the trial court granted the State's motion, adjudicated Monroe's guilt, and sentenced Monroe to twenty years' imprisonment. Monroe now appeals, challenging the legal sufficiency of the evidence to show Monroe violated provisions "B" and "G" of his community supervision. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
Standard of Review
Recent statutory amendments now permit us to review a trial court's decision to proceed to an adjudication of guilt. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 5(b) (Vernon Supp. 2008); Durgan v. State, 240 S.W.3d 875, 877-78 n. 1 (Tex.Crim.App. 2007); and contrast Connolly v. State, 983 S.W.2d 738, 741 (Tex.Crim.App. 1999) (applying prior statute's bar to sufficiency challenge). The determination of an adjudication of guilt is reviewable in the same manner as that used to determine whether sufficient evidence supported the trial court's decision to revoke community supervision. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 5(b). That standard, which we recently summarized, is the following:We review the trial court's decision regarding probation revocation for an abuse of discretion and examine the evidence in a light most favorable to the trial court's order. To revoke probation, the State must prove every element of at least one ground for revocation by a preponderance of the evidence. The trial court holds very broad discretion over community supervision, its revocation, and its modification. Considering the unique nature of the revocation hearing and the trial court's broad discretion in the proceedings, the general standards for reviewing factual sufficiency do not apply. If the greater weight of credible evidence creates a reasonable belief a defendant has violated a condition of his or her probation, the trial court's order of revocation did not abuse its discretion and must be upheld.Pierce v. State, 113 S.W.3d 431, 436 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2003, pet. ref'd) (citations omitted).