### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 6 -00 017 -CR

Am os Je ffer so n K e nne m e r , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF B URNET COUNTY , 33RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 9073 , HO NORAB LE GUILF ORD L. JO NES III , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Ap pe lla nt Am os Jef

fe rs on Ke nn e me r ple a de d g uil ty to fe lony dr ivi ngwhile intox icated. See Tex. P enal Code Ann. § 49.04 (West 2003) , § 49.09(b) ( West S upp. 2006). The dis tr ic t c ourt

pla c e d K e nn e me r o n p ro bati on fo r e ig ht ye ars . T he State mov e d to re vo ke his probation. The district c ourt found that Ke nnemer had violated thre e probation conditions and thus revoke d his probation. I n three issues on appea l, K enneme r contests the sufficie ncy of the e vidence to s up po rt

re vo c a tio n. We w ill a ff

ir m.

BACK GR OUND On Au g us t 28 , 2 00 0, Ke nn e me r w a s indi c te d for dr ivi ng wh ile int oxic a te d. B e c a us e Ke nn e mer ha d b e e n c on vic te d o f t hr e e pr ior of fe ns e s r e latin g to t

he op e ra tio n o f a mot or ve hic le while intox icated, the offe nse wa s classified a s a third-de g ree felony
. See Tex. P enal Code A nn.An ig nit ion int e rl oc k d e vic e is a

n in -c ar a lc oh ol b re ath scr een ingde vic e that pr e ve nts a 1 vehicle f rom starting if it detects a blood a lcohol conce ntration (B AC) over a pre -set li m it. The device is located inside the ve hicle, nea r the drive r’s seat, and is c onnecte d to the eng ine’s ig nition sy ste m.
2 § 49.09(b). Kenne mer pleaded guilty , and the district cour t assessed a

ten-y ear sentenc e and pla ced Kenne mer on probation for eight y ear s. The district cour t imposed twenty -five c onditions of probation, including conditions that Kenneme r (1) report as direc ted to his probation office r, (2) participate and wor

k, without compensation, ten hours pe r month in a community service prog ram or task as dire cted by

his probation o ff

i ce r fo r a tot al of 600 hours, a nd (3) install an ig nition int e rl oc k d e vic e on

any ve hic le that he may

op e ra te fo r a te rm of fo ur y e ars . 1 On Marc h 4, 2005, the State filed its “Second A mended Motion t o Revoke Pr ob a tio n, ” a lle g ingtha

t Kenne me r h a d v iol a te d th e se thr e e c on dit ion s. Spe c if ic a lly , th e State alleg ed that
The de fenda

nt failed to report to community supervision offic ers a s directe d on the months of September 2004 a nd Fe bruar

y 2005. The de fenda

nt failed to par

ticipate and w ork, wit h o u t co mpensation, ten hours pe r mon th i n a

c omm un ity se rv ic e pr og ra

m or ta sk a s f oll ow s: April 2001 - June 2004 The de fenda

nt failed to install an ig nition int erloc k d ev ice on a 2001 Dodg e Ram pickup. The de fenda

nt failed to install an ig nition interloc k device on a 1993 GMC Suburban. On J une 11, 2004, the de fenda nt was oper ating a 19 9 3 GMC Suburban without an ignition interlock de vice.3 The district cour

t held a re vocation hea

ring on April 4, 2005. The State c alled seve ral witnesses, including probation off icer Terry Ke n n edy , transfe r ca seworke r Ka rlette He y , and probation off

icer J ill Melnick. Kenneme r testified in his own def ense. Terr y Kenne dy was the intake office r for Kenne mer. Ke nnedy testified that he ha d
re a d a nd e xpla ine d a ll the pr ob a tio n c on di ti ons to Ke nn e me r, inc lud ingtho se that he a lle g e dly violated. Kenne dy

testified that he ha d no d o u b t t h at Kenne mer “ understood all ter ms and conditions” of his probation.

Kar lette Hey

was a transfe r ca seworke r in Bur net County , meaningthat she handle d pa pe rw or k in c a se s whe re the de fe nd ant w a s p lac e d o n p ro batio n in B ur ne t Co un ty

bu t r e sid e d in a diffe rent c ounty

for supe rvision. Although Kenneme r was to be supervised in Bur net County

for thi s c a se , h e wa s o n p ro batio n in mor e tha n o ne c ounty . H e y

wa s invo lve d w ithpr oc e ssinghis transfe r pape rwork. H ey

testified that she talke d to Kenneme r over the phone a

bout a traf fic a ccide nt in which he wa s involved. Hey rec ounted that Kenne mer told he r that the ac cident occ urre d in J une 2004 and that he admitted that he had be en drivinga 1993 Suburban w ithout an ignition interlock. Kenne mer c laimed that, at the time of the acci d en t , h e wa s n o longe r re quired to use a n ignition interlock device. Howeve r, according to the probation order , Kenne mer wa s supposed to have a n ignition interlock de vice on a ny vehicle he drove until Fe bruar y 2005, fou r y ears afte r the date he
wa s p la c e d o n p ro batio n. Th e dis tr ic t c ourt too k ju dic ia l no tic e of

the or de r’ s f

our- y e ar r e qu ir e me nt. Hey also explained that while Ke n nemer was supposed to re port to the probation off ice a ll of the vehicles he owned or

drove, K enneme r neve r listed the Suburban.Kenne mer asser ted that he attempted to r eport to his probation office r in a n email, but there 2 was no other

evidenc e to support this assertion. 4 Hey also rec eived a

repor t from Kenne mer’s ex -wife that, during his visit ation
wee kends with the ir children, K enneme r wa s picking up the childre n in a 2001 Dodg e Ram pickup truck that wa s not equipped with an ig nition int erloc k device . Hey further testified that as ea rly as October 2003, she had be en re ceivingrepor ts from the interlock c ompany reg ardingthe low number of eng ine starts, an indication that he was drivinganother vehicle. J ill Melnick was as s i gn ed Kennemer’s c ase on Ma rch 22, 2004. Me lnick testified that Kenne mer fa iled to report to he r twice, on September 29, 2004, a nd Fe bruar

y 9, 2005. Melnick further testified that in Aug ust 2004 she stopped by Kenne mer’s house to chec k on the pickup truc k that he was alleg edly driving
. She looked inside the truck a nd deter mined that there was no ig nition interlock de vice installed. When Melnick c onfronted Kenne mer about this, he admitted drivingthe truck but, ag ain, claimed that he was no long er r equire d to use the devic e.

Kenne mer testified that the rea son he wa s confuse d about the leng th of time that he
was re quired to use the inter lock device was be cause he believe d that the four- y ear require ment ran fro m th e date the de vic e wa s f ir st i ns ta lle d in

his ve hic le , Jun e 20 00 , r a the r t ha n th e date his probation beg an, F ebrua

ry 2001. Ke nn e me r a dmi tte d that, in Sep te mbe r 200 4 a nd F e br ua ry 20 05 , h e did

no t r e po rt

in person to his probation office r as dire cted but explained that he missed the Septembe r mee ting

2 beca use his children w ere sick and missed the F ebrua ry meeting beca

use he w as in court. I n closing argument, Kenne mer “ pleade d true” to removing the interlock de vice be fore he should have
.5 The district court fo u n d t h e allegations in t he State’s motion to revoke to be true, revoke d Kenne mer’s probation, and a ssessed punishment at three y ear s’ conf inement. This appea l followed.
DI SCU SSIO N

I n three issues on appea l, Kenne mer asserts that there is leg ally insufficient e vidence to support the district court’s finding s that he violat ed ea ch of the three probation conditions discussed above
.

We review the district c ourt’s decision to r evoke probation for abuse of discretion. Car do na v . S tate , 6 65 S.W. 2d

49 2, 49 3 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 84 ). Ab us e of dis c re tio n oc c ur s “ on ly when the t ri al judge ’s dec ision was so clea rly wrongas to lie outside the zone within which
rea sonable persons mig ht disag ree .” Can tu v . S tate , 842 S.W .2d 667, 682 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992). Th e tr ia l c ourt

is the jud g e of

the c re dib ili ty

of the wi tne sse s and

the we ig ht t o b e given the ir testimony
. Ga rre tt v . S

tate , 6 1 9 S
. W
. 2 d

1 7 2 , 1 7 4 ( T e x. C r i m . A p p . 1 9 8 1) ; Mau ney v. Stat e , 107 S.W .3d 693, 695 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003, no pet.). We view the e vidence p re s en t ed in a
revoc ation proce edingin the light most fa vorable to the trial court’ s ruling. Se e Ga rre tt , 619 S.W .2d
a t 17 4; Mauney , 107 S.W .3d at 695.

I n probation revocation procee dings, the State has t he burden of proving a violation of the ter ms of probation by

a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e. Cob b v . S

tate , 851 S.W .2d 871, 873 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 93 ); W ill is v . S tate , 2 S.W .3d 397, 399 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999, no pet.). The State satisfies this standa

rd “whe n the g reater weig ht of the cre dible evidenc e bef ore the court c reates
a re asonable belief that a condition of probation has been violate d as alleg ed.” J e nk ins v . S tate , 7406

S.W .2d 435, 437 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983). A finding of a sing le violation of the terms of pr obation is sufficient to support the cour t’s revoc ation order
. Sa nc he z v . S tate , 6 0 3 S. W. 2 d

8 6 9 , 8 7 1 ( T e x. Crim. App. 1980). Thus, if the di strict court did not abuse its di scre tion in finding that Ke nnemer vio la te d at le a st o ne c on dit ion of his pr ob a tio n, we ne e d n ot c on sid e r t he oth e r p ro batio n c on dit ion s. Wit h that principle in mind, we c onsi d er wh et h er sufficie nt evidence supports the district court’s finding that Kenne mer viol ated his probation by failing to comply with the conditi on related t o the ignition interlock de vice.

Th e c on dit ion

of p robat ion

re late d to the int e rl oc k d e vic e re qu ir e d K e nn e me r t o “[i] nstall a

n ignition interlock device on any vehicle that [ he] may

operate for a

term of f our y ear s and pay costs of s am e. ” I t is clear f rom the re cord that Kenneme r did not do so. Probation was g rante d on Fe bruar

y 2, 2001. Offic er K ennedy testified that the four -y ear term beg an t he day Kenne me r w a s p la c e d o n p r o b a ti o n . T h is me an s th a t th e te r m d id n o t e n d u n ti l F e b r

u ary 2005. Ke nn e me r a dmi tte d to dr ivi ngwi tho ut an int e rl oc k de vic e sin c e a t le a st June 20 04 , a nd the re is s ome
ev i d e n ce i nt h e r ec o rdt h at h e m ay h av e b ee ndri v i n g wi t h o u ta d ev i ce b ef o re t h en . Al t h o u gh Kenne mer a sserted that he was mistaken a bout the date on w h i ch t h e ter m beg an, his claim wa s ref uted by Kenne dy ’s t estimony that Kenne mer “ understood all ter ms and conditions” of probation when they

wer e explained to him. Fur thermore , in closing arg ument Kenne mer pleaded true to violating this probation condition. A plea of

true, standingalone, is suffic ient to support the revoc ation of probation. Moses
v . S tat e , 59 0 S.W. 2d 46 9, 47 0 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 79 ); Atc his on v . S tate , 124 S.W .3d 755, 758 n.4 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003, pet. ref ’d).7 Vi e we d in

the lig ht m os t f

a vo ra ble t o th e distr ic t c ourt ’s ru lin g , th is e vid e nc e is
su ff ic ie nt t o s up po rt

a fi nd ingtha

t K e nn e me r v iol a te d th e c on dit ion of his pr ob a tio n r e qu ir inghim to install an ignition interlock devic e on any vehicle he operated. Ther efor e, we need not de termine whether there is sufficient evide nce to show that he violated the other two c onditions. See Sanc hez , 60 3 S. W.2 d at 87 1. We o ve rr ule Ke nn e me r’ s is su e s o n a pp e a l.
CO NC LU SION Havingoverr

uled Kenne mer’s issues on a ppeal, we aff

ir m t h e judg ment of the dis tr ic t c ourt .

Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pember ton and Waldrop Affir med Filed: F ebrua

ry 1, 2007 Do no t pu bli sh