No. 05-07-01301-CR
Opinion Filed July 14, 2008. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47.
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 2 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F05-28042-VI.
Before Justices FITZGERALD, RICHTER, and LANG-MIERS.
MARTIN RICHTER, Justice.
Andre Antonio Whitley, Jr. was convicted of robbery. Punishment was assessed at eight years' imprisonment. In three points of error, appellant challenges the judgment revoking his community supervision. We affirm the trial court's judgment.
Background
The motion to revoke appellant's community supervision alleged appellant violated several 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 eight years' imprisonment. Applicable Law
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). In determining questions concerning sufficiency of the evidence in probation revocation cases, the burden of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. An order revoking probation must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning the greater weight of the credible evidence which would create a reasonable belief that a defendant has violated a condtion of his probation. See id. at 763-64. Due Process
In his first point of error, appellant argues the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his community supervision without specifying which allegations it found had been proven true. Specifically, appellant asserts the judgment revoking community supervision failed to satisfy the minimum requirements of due process because the trial court did not set out the reasons for revoking his community supervision. The State responds appellant did not request that specific findings be included in the order revoking community supervision, and the trial court is not required to make specific findings. The minimum requirements of due process that must be observed in probation revocation hearings include a written statement by the fact finder as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for revoking probation. See Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 786 (1973). However, Texas courts require a defendant to make a request for specific findings. See King v. State, 649 S.W.2d 42, 46 (Tex.Crim.App. 1983). In the absence of such a request, the trial court's failure to make specific findings in the order revoking probation is not reversible error. Id. Appellant did not request findings or conclusions. Moreover, the motion to revoke is included in the record, and the judgment recites the trial court found the allegations in the motion to revoke had been proved. We conclude the judgment revoking appellant's community supervision satisfies minimum due process requirements. We overrule appellant's first point of error. Abuse of Discretion
In his second and third points of errors, appellant contends the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support revocation based upon the failure to pay costs and fees because he proved an inability to pay. The State responds the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the revocation. The State alleged appellant violated seven conditions of community supervision, including failing to report, failing to obtain substance abuse/mental health screening, failing to contact the supervisor in Garland for an initial appointment, and failing to pay costs, fine, and fees. During the revocation hearing, appellant pleaded true to all of the allegations in the motion to revoke. A plea of true, standing alone, supports revocation of community supervision. See Cole v. State, 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex.Crim.App. [Panel Op.] 1979). Moreover, appellant testified that although the trial court passed deciding on the State's motion to revoke for ninety days to give appellant a chance to report to the probation department, he failed to "show up" for ten months. Appellant's admission that he failed to report to the probation department for ten months, standing alone, is sufficient to support the trial court's judgment 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.). We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking appellant's community supervision. See Rickels, 202 S.W.3d at 763-64. We overrule appellant's second and third point of error. We affirm the trial court's judgment.