## In t he Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 23

- 00027

- CR

ROBERT WAYNE NIXON , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 115th District Court Marion County, Texas Trial Court No. F14755

Befo r e Stevens , C.J., van Cleef and Rambin , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef2 

### ME MORANDUM OPINION Robert Wayne Nixon pled guilty to d riving while intoxicated , third or more, was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment, and was ordered to pay a $2, 5 00.00 fine. Pursuant to a plea

- bargain agreement with the State, the trial cour t suspended Nixon’s sentence in favor of placing him on community supervision for ten years. The State moved to revoke N ixon ’s community supervision on the gro un d s that he f a iled to comp l y with the term s and condition s that required him to us e an in

- home alcohol monitoring device and that he failed to abstain from consuming alcohol

. After finding the State’s allegation s “ true, ” the trial court revoked Nixon’s community super v is ion and reinst ate d its sentence of ten years’ imprisonment and its $2,500.00
fine

. On appeal, Nixon admits that he continued to drink whil e on community supervision but complains that the trial court erred by revoking his s upervision afte r a “five ye a r and four mon th
failure

. . . to monitor Mr. Nixon’s alcohol tests , ” which were conducted by the in

- home alcohol monitoring device. Nixon’s argument presents no proper legal basis on which to reverse the trial court’s judgment

. Becaus e su fficient evide n ce support s th e trial court’ s r evocation , we affirm its judgment.
I . F actual Background In addition to refraining from consuming alcohol, Nixon was required , under the terms and conditions of his community supervision, to ins tall a n “ [ I N

- H OM device[] . . . until [he had] completed at least HALF [ H IS] [ COMMUNITY SUPERVISION ]

. ” The State’s revocation motion alleged that Nixon drank alcohol and “[f]ailed to provide a breath sample when prompted3

by the [ I N

- H OM ] breath analysis device.” At t he r evocation h e aring, Nixon pled “ true ” to those allegati ons . After f

inding Nixon’s plea s knowing and voluntary , the trial court accepted them. Nixon’s c ommunity s upervision officer (CSO) , Traci Smith, testified that Nixon lived in
Loui siana and reported to a communit y supervision offi cer there. Wi thout o bjec tion, the State
introduced su mmaries from the “ Smart Start I N

- HOM ” devi ce , which showed that Nixon failed
to take 439 requested breath tests and tested positive eighty

- one time s for alcohol

. Smit h
testifi ed th at, in her twenty

- five ye ars of employment as a CSO, she had never seen so many

v io lations

. Even so, Smith said the Louisia na community supervision department did not report the positive and skipped breath tests becaus e the reports from the device we re be in g sent to “the [justice of the peace] who original ly

. . . ordered [it] as a condition of bond

. ” Nixon’s wif

e, April, testified that she was aware Nixon continued to drink “Bud Light” while on community supervision and that he fa iled to t ake requ ested br e ath t ests

. April said she did not report Nixon to his CSO because she “was worried that [she] wa s going to los e him.” April asked the trial court for leniency and said Nixon “would have to go to rehab bec aus e he [did] have a drinking problem.” S he adde d that Nixon h a d refused her requests to seek help with Alcoholics Anonymous. Nixon’s daughter, Je nnifer, also s aid that Nixon drank during he r entire
childhood and had a continuing drinking problem.
As the l ast witnes s, Nixon took th e stand, ad mitt ed t h at he was an alcoholic , and affirmed
that he had continued to drink while on community supervision. N ix on testified that he had no

excuse for the community supervision violations , promised not to drink aga in, and w ished to be
continued on c ommunity su pe r v ision.4

After hearing this evidence, the trial court revoked Nixon’s community supervision and impo se d its origin al sentenc e. II. Sufficient Evidence Supports the Decision to Revoke Community Supervisi on Nixo n argues that the trial co urt erred b y r e voking com munity supervision because his
Louisiana CSO “should have interceded early t o give Mr. Nixo n an opportunity to correct his
behavio r ” but instead waited “five years and four mon ths

. ” We disagree.
At a revocation heari ng, “ [ t ] he Sta te must pro v e by a preponderance of the evid ence that

a defendant violated the terms [ and cond itions of commu nity supervision ]

. ” Cobb v. Stat e , 851 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). Proof by a preponderance of evidence a s to any one of the all eged violations o f the conditions of community supervision is sufficient to support a
trial co urt’ s decision to re voke community supervision. Smit h v. State , 286 S.W.3d 333, 342 (Tex. Crim. App . 2009); see Marsh v. State , 343 S.W.3d 475, 479 (Te x. App.

— Te xark ana 2011,
pe t

. ref’d) (citing Moore v. State , 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. [Pane l Op.] 1980)).

“ We re view the trial court ’ s decision t o revoke community supervision for an ab use of
discretion. ” Davidson v. State , 422 S. W.3d 750, 756 (Tex. App.

— Te xarkana 2013 , pet. ref’d ) (citing Meyer v. State , 366 S.W.3d 728, 729 (Tex. App.

— Texarka na 201 2, no pet. ) ). I n a revocation hearing, the trial court is the sole trier of the facts an d determines the credibility of the
witnesses and the weigh t given to the ir testimony

. In re T.R.S

. , 115 S.W.3d 318, 32 1 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2003, no pet. ). A trial court’s decisio n to revoke community supervision and to proceed to adju dication is examined in the light most favorable to the trial c ourt’s judgme n t. Id

. ; see Davidson , 42 2 S.W.3d at 756. “ If a single ground for revocation is supported by a5

pre ponderan ce of the eviden ce and is otherwise valid, then a n abuse of dis cretion i s not shown. ” Davidson , 422 S.W.3d at 756

. Nixon makes no a rgument sugge sting that the State’s rev o c ation grounds were unproven by a preponderance of the evidence. Here, t he record established th at Nixon (1) pled “ true ” to both of the State’s revoc ation all egations , (2) continued to drink during the duration of h is

c ommuni ty supervision, ( 3) tested po s i tive eighty

- one time s for alcohol , and (4) failed to take
439 breath tests requested by the in

- hom e alcohol monitoring dev ice. Because the grounds for

rev ocation were s upported by a preponderance of the eviden ce, we find no abuse of discret ion in
the tr i a l court’s decision to revoke Nixon’s community supervision.
III. Conclusion
We affirm the tria l court’s judgment.

Charles van Cleef J ustice
Date Subm itted: Ma y 5, 2023 Date Decided: May 9 , 2023
Do Not Publish