Opinion
No. 05-07-00177-CR
Opinion issued April 16, 2008. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47
On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4 Dallas County, Texas, Trial Court Cause No. F00-44270-QK.
Before Justices WHITTINGTON, BRIDGES, and FRANCIS. Opinion By Justice BRIDGES.
OPINION
Ralph Edwards Wrigley, II waived a jury and pleaded true to aggravated assault. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the trial court assessed punishment at ten years' confinement, probated for ten years, and a $500 fine. Subsequently, the trial court revoked appellant's community supervision, assessed punishment at ten years' imprisonment and a $500 fine, ordered appellant to boot camp, then again placed appellant on community supervision for ten years. The State later moved to revoke appellant's community supervision, alleging several violations. The trial court found the allegations true, revoked appellant's community supervision, and assessed punishment at ten years' imprisonment. In two points of error, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his community supervision and the written judgment does not accurately reflect the conditions appellant was found to have violated. We affirm the trial court's judgment. In his first point of error, appellant argues the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his community supervision because he disavowed his plea of true to some of the allegations and was unable to pay the costs and fees. The State responds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking appellant's community supervision. 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 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 motion to revoke, the State alleged appellant violated seven conditions of community supervision, including "failure to report to the probation officer as directed." During the revocation hearing, appellant testified he received a copy of the motion, understood the allegations, voluntarily signed a plea of true and stipulation of evidence in this case, and voluntarily pleaded true to 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). Appellant testified he did not pay costs and fees because he was unemployed, and admitted he failed to report to the probation officer. 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 failed to report to the probation officer. Appellant's admission, 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); see also Lee, 952 S.W.2d at 897. 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 overrule appellant's first point of error. In his second point of error, appellant argues the trial court's written judgment does not reflect the specific conditions of community supervision he was found to have violated. Appellant asserts the evidence is insufficient to sustain any ground for the revocation, except that he failed to report. The State responds that the judgment does not require specificity as to the allegations the court found true. The written judgment recites the trial court found appellant violated the conditions of community supervision "as follows: See attached motion to revoke community supervision." The motion to revoke attached to the judgment contains descriptions of seven violations by appellant. There is no requirement that the judgment state the specific conditions found to have been violated from a list of several conditions. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 23 (Vernon Supp. 2007). As we have already concluded, appellant's admission that he failed to report, standing alone, is sufficient to support the trial court's order revoking community supervision. See Watts, 645 S.W.2d at 463; Lewis v. State, 195 S.W.3d 205, 209 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2006, no pet.). We overrule appellant's second point of error. We affirm the trial court's judgment.