Opinion
No. 01-06-00133-CR.
Opinion issued May 10, 2007. DO NOT PUBLISH. Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
On Appeal from the 230th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 988277.
Panel consists of Justices TAFT, ALCALA, and HANKS .
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant, Roscoe Randolph Jordan, appeals the trial court's judgment revoking his community supervision for aggravated robbery. In two points of error, appellant contends that (1) the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support the trial court's revocation and (2) the trial court erred "by assessing a sentence against Appellant which was excessive and disproportionate to the crime committed." We affirm.
Background
In May 2004, the State charged appellant with aggravated robbery. A jury found appellant guilty and assessed punishment at confinement for seven years and further recommended that the sentence be suspended. The trial court placed appellant on seven years community supervision. The State subsequently moved to revoke appellant's community supervision, alleging that he had violated 11 conditions and terms of his community supervision . The trial court held a revocation hearing and, after hearing testimony from six witnesses, including appellant's probation officer, the trial court found that appellant had violated the terms and conditions of his community supervision. The court therefore revoked appellant's community supervision and assessed punishment at seven years' imprisonment. This appeal followed .Standard of Review
A revocation proceeding is neither criminal nor civil in nature; it is an administrative proceeding . See Cobb v. State , 851 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993) ; Canseco v. State , 199 S.W.3d 437, 438 (Tex.App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. ref'd). At a revocation hearing, the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant has violated a condition of his community supervision. Cobb, 851 S.W.2d at 873 ; Canseco , 199 S.W.3d at 438. Proof of a single violation is sufficient to support a revocation . Canseco , 199 S.W.3d at 439. Our review of the evidence is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its discretion in revoking the defendant's community supervision. Cobb, 851 S.W.2d at 873 ; Canseco , 199 S.W.3d at 439. We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's judgment. Cobb, 851 S.W.2d at 873 ; Canseco , 199 S.W.3d at 439. The trial court is the exclusive judge of the credibility of the witnesses and must determine whether the allegations in the motion to revoke are sufficiently demonstrated . Canseco , 199 S.W.3d at 439.Sufficiency
In point of error one, appellant argues that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support the trial court's revocation of his community supervision. As set out above, we do not review the evidence supporting revocation of probation for legal and factual sufficiency. Rather, we review the trial court's discretion in finding, by a preponderance of the evidence, a violation of a term or condition of community supervision . In its motion to revoke community supervision, the State alleged that appellant had violated 11 terms and conditions of his community supervision. The trial court found the following violations :(1) committed an offense against the laws of the State
(2) failed to avoid injurious or vicious habits
(3) failed to work at suitable employment
(4) failed to pay Supervision Fee
(5) failed to pay a fine and court costsHouston Police Officer Richard Razo testified that, on November 10, 2005, he attempted to execute a warrant for Kashawn Reece, who was suspected of credit card abuse. He knew that appellant was "associated" with Reece, and he saw appellant leaving her apartment when he pulled into the apartment complex. He asked appellant to put his hands on the side of the police car, and Razo proceeded to pat down appellant. Razo discovered a bag of crack cocaine in appellant's right sock. Razo testified that, after he was arrested, appellant said, "If you make that go away, I will tell you what you need to know." "I will tell you where Kashawn is." He also told Razo that he had to move to a different home "because his family knows that he and Kashawn were on crack." Appellant testified that he did not have any drugs on him when Officer Razo searched him. He said that Razo "threw something" beside him and said that he could "make it disappear" if appellant could get Kashawn to come to him . The trial court was the sole trier of fact and judge of the credibility of the witnesses and could accept or reject any of all of the witnesses' testimony . See id. ; Mattias v. State , 731 S.W.2d 936, 940 (Tex.Crim.App. 1987). We hold that the evidence was sufficient to show, by a preponderance, that appellant "had committed an offense against the laws of the State." Because proof of a single violation is sufficient to support a revocation, we need not address appellant's further sufficiency complaints . See Canseco , 199 S.W.3d at 439. We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking appellant's community supervision, and we overrule point of error one .