AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed July 25, 2022 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-21-00010-CR No. 05-21-00014-CR NICHOLAS DAVID CH AMBERS, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TE XAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 296-80112-2018; 296-80114-2018 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Myers, Carlyle, and Goldstein Opinion by Justice Goldstein Nicholas David Chambers appeals the revocation of his community supervision. The trial c ourt revoked appellant’s community supervision in both causes and sentenced him to eight years’ c onfinement. In a single issue, Chambers argues the trial court abused its discretio n in revoking his community supervision. We affirm the trial court’s judgments. In January 2018, Chambers was indicted for possession of 3,4- Methylenedioxy methamphetamine, in an am ount of one gram or more but less than four grams in cause number 05-21-00010 -CR and possession of methamphetamine–2– in an amount of one gram or more but le ss than four grams in cause number 05-21- 00014-CR. Pursuant to a negotiated plea ag reement, Chambers pled guilty to the charges, and the trial c ourt assessed punishment in each case at ten years’ confinement and placed Chambers on commun ity supervision for five years. In June 2019, the State filed a mo tion to revoke Chambers’ community supervision in each case. Read toge ther, the motions alleged Chambers (1) committed theft of property in an amount great er than or equal to $100 but less than $750 on May 8, 2019; (2) committed theft of pr operty in an amount greater than or equal to $100 but less than $750 on Marc h 23, 2019; (3) committed unauthorized use of a motor vehicle on April 9, 2019; (4 ) failed to pay a $500 fine; (5) failed to pay a $40 substance abuse evaluation fee; (6) failed to pay a $650 supervision fee; (7) failed to perform 140 community service hours at the rate of ten hours per month; (8) failed to pay $393 in court costs; (9) failed to pay a $50 crime stoppers fee; and (10) failed to report as scheduled by the s upervision officer for the months of March and April 2019. In October 2019, Chambers entered into another plea agreement in which he pled true to six of the allegations in each motion, and the tria l court continued him on community supervision. In January 2020, the State filed add itional motions to revoke community supervision alleging Chambers (1) committe d unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon and possession of drug parapherna lia on December 3, 2019; (2) committed–3– fraud in the use/possession of identifying information on August 11, 2019; and (3) committed failure to identify as a fugitive w ith the intent to give false information on June 21, 2019. The motion al so re-alleged the commission of most of the offenses alleged in the prior motion to revoke. On April 9, 2020, the trial court entere d an order setting fu rlough and releasing Chambers from jail to receive drug treatment at Soul’s Harbor, a facility in Dallas. On December 1, 2020, the trial court held a hearing on the State’s motion to revoke. Chambers pled true to committing failure to identify as a fugitive with the intent to give false information and testified he possessed drug paraphernalia. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found fourteen of the allegations in the motion to revoke true. On January 5, 2021, the trial court entered judgment revoking Chambers’ community supervision and sent encing him to eight years’ confinement in each case. Thes e appeals followed. In a single issue, Chambers argues the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his community supervis ion. In a revocation pro ceeding, the trial court has discretion to revoke community supervisi on when a preponderance of the evidence supports one of the State’s allegations that the defendant violated a condition of his community supervision. Leonard v. State , 385 S.W.3d 570, 576 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012). Though defendants are not entitled to community supervision as a matter of right, once a defendant is assessed comm unity supervision in lieu of other punishment, this conditional liberty should not be arbitrarily withdrawn by the court.–4– Id. On appeal from a trial court’s decision to revoke, therefore, appellate courts review the record only to ensure that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. Id. Here, the record shows Chambers pl ed guilty to the underlying offenses pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement and was sentenced to ten years’ confinement in each case. Chambers was placed on co mmunity supervision. In June 2019, the State filed a motion to revoke Chambers ’ community supervision alleging ten separate violations of the terms and co nditions of his community supervision in cause number 05-21-00010-CR and seven vi olations in in cause number 05-21- 00014-CR. Nevertheless, the trial court continued Chambers on community supervision following Chambers’ plea of true to six of the allegations in each motion. In January 2020, the State again f iled motions to revoke Chambers’ community supervision alleging additional violations. At the hearing on the motion, Chambers pled true to committing failure to identify as a fugitive with the intent to give false information. Cham bers also testified that he was “[k]ind of” living in a car for “several months” and he is a fel on, but he “didn’t know anything about a gun being in the car” that belonge d to Chambers’ girlfriend’s husband. Chambers further testified he had a “pot pipe” in his pocket when he was in the car, but he “didn’t remember that it was there.” The record here is clear that Chambers violated at least two terms and conditions of his community s upervision, and the trial c ourt therefore did not abuse its discretion in revoking Chambe rs’ community supervision. See id. In reaching–5– this conclusion, we reject Chambers’ argum ent that it is “in the best interests of justice” and he and the co mmunity “benefited most” by his remaining on community supervision or receiving a substantially reduced senten ce. We overruled Chambers’ sole issue. We affirm the trial court’s judgments.

D O N OT P UBLISH Tex. R. App. P. 47 210010F.U05 /Bonnie Lee Goldstein / BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN JUSTICE–6– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
NICHOLAS DAVID CHAMBERS, Appellant

No. 05-21-00010-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 296-80112- 2018. Opinion delivered by Justice Goldstein. Justices Myers and Carlyle participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this da te, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED

. Judgment entered July 25, 2022–7– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
NICHOLAS DAVID CHAMBERS, Appellant
No. 05-21-00014-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 296-80114- 2018. Opinion delivered by Justice Goldstein. Justices Myers and Carlyle participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this da te, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED

. Judgment entered July 25, 2022