### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-10-00817- CR

P ete r ScottLin dsay, App ellant

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F H AY S CO UNTY, 22ND J UDICIAL DI STRICT NO. CR-03 -88 2, H ONO RAB LE CHARLES R. RAMSEY , JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Peter S cott L indsay appea ls from a judgme nt revoking community supervision. In

one point of err or, appellant contends that his rig ht to due proce ss was violated when the trial court failed to make specific written finding s in the judgme nt indicating the conditions of his community supervision that he ha d violated. For the re asons that follow, we aff irm the judg ment. In 2004, appellant enter ed a plea of guilty to the offe nse of robber y , a second degree felony

. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 29.02 (West 2011). The trial court sentenc ed him to ten y ear s’ confine ment but suspended imposit ion of the sentenc e and place d appellant on ten y ear s’ community supervision under cer

tain conditions. Alleg ing multipl e violati o n s o f the se conditions, the State filed

a motion to revoke co m m u n i t y supervision and impose sentenc e in J une 2010 and an amende d motion on November 9, 2010, the day of the hearing on the State’s motion. In its amende d motion, the S tate allege d that appellant violated the condi tions of hi s community supervision by failing toobey all the order s of the court and his supervising office r; committing the offe nses of assault bodily

injury , failure to ide ntify , unlawful restra int, a nd assault; failinga drugtest; failing to r eport to his supervising office r on one occa sion; failing to make pay ments and fee s on multipl e dates; and failing to perfor m community

service

. Appellant w ai v ed his rig ht for additional time to prepa re and agree d to g o forwa rd with the hear ing on the State’s amende d motion to revoke. Witnesses who testified at the he aring included appellant, the victim of the alleg ed assault s a nd unlawful restra int offe nses, an investigating police office r of one of the alleg ed assaults and the failure to identify offe nse, an eye-w itness to one of the alleg ed assaults, and a probation office r who supervised appellant. After the hearing, the trial
court found that appellant had violated the conditions of his community supervision and signe d a judgme nt revokingcommunity supervision. Our revie w of an order revoking community supervision is limit ed to deter minating whether the trial court abused its discretion. See Ricke ls v. State , 202 S.W .3d 759, 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). An or der revoking community supervision must be supported by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e. Id

. at 763–64. A finding that the defe ndant violated a single condition of community supervision is sufficie nt to support revoc ation. See Smith v. State , 286 S.W .3d 333, 342 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009) (“We have long held that ‘one sufficie nt ground for revoc ation would support the trial court’s order revoking ’ community supervision.” (quoting Jones v. State , 571 S.W .2d 191, 193–94 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978))).

Appellant does not challeng e the sufficie ncy of the evidenc e to support a finding that he violated a conditi o n o f community supervision. He contends that his rig ht to due proce ss was

2violated when the trial court failed to make specific written finding s to support its judgme nt revoking

community supervision. Appellant urg es that his ability to prosec ute an appea l without finding s was diminis hed and cites to differ ence s in the State’s orig in al m o t i o n and its amende d motion and inconsistent testimony

as to the date of at lea st one of the a lleg ed violations. The United States Supreme Court has held that the “‘minimum require ments of due
proce ss’” for probation revoc ation hearings include “‘a written statement by the fac tfinders as to the evidenc e relied on and the rea sons for revoking [probation] .’” See Gagnon v. Scarpelli , 411 U.S. 778, 786 (1973) (quoting Morr is s ey v. Brewer , 408 U.S. 471, 489 (1972)) ; see also
Ex Parte Carmona , 185 S.W .3d 492, 495 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (re citing require ments of due
proce ss as set forth in Gagnon ). The Texas Court of C ri m i n al Ap p ea l s , howeve r, has held that a defe ndant m ust make a reque st for spec ific finding s and that, in the abse nce of such a reque st, the trial court’s failure to make specific finding s in the revoc ation order is not reve rsible err or. See King v. State , 649 S.W .2d 42, 46 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983). 1

Her e appellant conce des that he did not reque st specific finding s. Fur ther, the motion and amende d motio n t o re v o k e are in the rec ord, provided notice to appellant of the State’s

See, e.g. , Mason v. State , 495 S.W .2d 248, 250 (Tex. Crim. App. 1973); Moreno v. State , 1 No. 05-11-00369- CR, 2011 Tex. App. L EXI S 9994, at *6–8 (Tex. App.—Dallas Dec

. 20, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op., not de signated for publication); Ambriz v. State , No. 14-10-00952- CR, 2011 Tex. App. L EXI S 6706, at *8 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] Aug

. 23, 2011, no pet.) (mem. op., not desig nated for publication) (abse nt reque st for finding s, order revoking probation sufficie nt even though it does not rec ite the finding s of trial court); Alb o l aez v. State , No. 05-09-01355- CR, 2011 Tex. App. L EXI S 1014, at *10 & n.2 (Tex. A pp.—Dallas Fe b. 11, 2011, no pet.) (me m. op., not desig nated for publication) (re quirement to reque st specific finding s fo r re v o k ing community supervision “we ll-settled” and declining appellant’ s invitation to disreg ard prec edent from Court of Criminal Appeals). 3alleg ations, appellan t agree d to g o forwa rd with the hearing on the State’s amende d motion, the judgme nt rec ites that the trial court found that the alleg ed violations had been proven, and appellant has not challeng ed the sufficie ncy of the evidenc e to support the alleg ed violations. See Smith , 286 S.W .3d at 342. On this rec ord, we overr ule appellant’ s point of err or and aff irm the judgme nt revokingcommunity

supervision.

__________________________________________

Melissa Goodwin, Jus tice
Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Henson a nd Goodwin Affir med Filed: August 28, 2012 Do Not Publish

4