Affirmed and Opinion Filed October 19, 2017 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-16-00710-CR 

NICHOLAS PHILIP YUKICH, III, Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court 

Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 366-82747-2011 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Francis, Myers, and Whitehill 

Opinion by Justice Francis 

Nicholas Philip Yukich, III appeals the trial court’s judgment revoking his community 

supervision and sentencing him to two years in prison. In a single issue, appellant contends the 

trial court abused its discretion by finding the evidence was sufficient to revoke his probation. 

We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

In April 2013, appellant pleaded guilty to the third degree felony offense of driving while 

intoxicated. According to the plea bargain agreement, the trial court sentenced appellant to six 

years in prison, suspended for four years community supervision. In October 2015, the State 

moved to revoke appellant’s community supervision contending he had violated seven different 

terms of his probation. After a hearing, the court continued and extended appellant’s community 

supervision to September 4, 2018. 
 –2– 

On January 7, 2016, the State filed a second motion to revoke appellant’s community 

supervision. At the hearing on the motion, appellant pleaded true to each of the probation 

violations alleged by the State. The court admonished appellant that his plea was an “open plea” 

with no agreed punishment and the court could either extend his probation again or sentence him 

to between two and six years in prison. Appellant stated he understood and agreed to proceed on 

his pleas and allow the trial court to determine his punishment. 

During the punishment phase of the hearing, the court heard the testimony of two 

probation officers and appellant. The focus of the testimony was the attempted but unsuccessful 

transfer of appellant’s probation to Oklahoma where he was moving for his job. Appellant stated 

that due to the transfer process, he felt “bounced around” and had difficulty fulfilling the terms 

and conditions of his probation. After hearing the evidence, the trial court accepted appellant’s 

pleas and found each of the alleged probation violations to be true. The court then revoked 

appellant’s probation and sentenced him to two years in prison. This appeal followed. 

In a single issue, appellant contends the trial court abused its discretion by revoking his 

community supervision because the evidence did not show he intentionally and knowingly 

violated the terms and conditions of his probation. Appellant argues the transfer process left him 

confused about how to meet the requirements of his community supervision. 

A trial court’s decision to revoke community supervision is reviewed under an abuse of 

discretion standard. See Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). A plea 

of true to an allegation contained in a motion to revoke community supervision, standing alone, 

is sufficient to support a decision to revoke. See Tapia v. State, 462 S.W.3d 29, 31 n.2 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2015). Furthermore, a proper finding that a defendant violated any one of the 

conditions of his community supervision is sufficient to support revocation. See Smith v. State, 

286 S.W.3d 333, 342 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). 
 –3– 

In this case, appellant pleaded true to all of the violations alleged in the State’s motion to 

revoke. This alone is sufficient to support the trial court’s decision. See Tapia, 462 S.W.3d at 

31 n.2. In addition, appellant admitted in his testimony that he violated many of the terms and 

conditions of his probation. Although he argues the attempted transfer of his probation to 

Oklahoma made compliance with residency and reporting requirements difficult, he makes no 

showing as to how he was prevented from fulfilling other terms of his probation including 

obtaining a properly functioning alcohol testing device, completing a Marijuana Intervention 

Program, and paying court costs of $630 within thirty days. Indeed, his testimony at the hearing 

showed that his failure to comply with most of the terms and conditions of his probation was 

largely because they were inconvenient and he had other priorities. We conclude the trial court 

did not abuse its discretion in revoking appellant’s community supervision. 

We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

 

Do Not Publish 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1 

160710F.U05 

 

/Molly Francis/ 

MOLLY FRANCIS 

JUSTICE 
 –4– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

NICHOLAS PHILIP YUKICH, III, 

Appellant 

No. 05-16-00710-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District 

Court, Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 366-82747-2011. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Francis. 

Justices Myers and Whitehill participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. 

Judgment entered October 19, 2017.