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

No. 06

- 23

- 00053

- CR

MICHAEL DAVID YORK , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 6th District Court Lamar County, Texas Trial Court No. 29335

Before St e vens , C.J., van Cleef and Rambin , JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rambin2 

### ME MORANDUM OPINION
Michael David York pled guilty to possessing less than one gram of methamphetamine. On October 29, 2021, t he trial court sentenced York to t wo years’ con f inement in state jail and ordered him to pay a $500.00 fine and $180.00 in reimbursement fees

. Pursuant to a plea agreement with the State, York’s sentence of confinement was suspended in favor of placing him

on com munity supervision for five ye a r s. Th e conditions of York’s community supervision required him to, among other things, “[r]eport in person, as scheduled, to the Community Supervision and Corrections Department (CSCD) of Lamar County ” and “[p]erform 250 hours of Comm unity Service Res t i tution. ” The
State moved to revoke York’s community supervision on the grounds that York violated those conditions, along with failure

- to

- pay allegations that it later abandoned. After a re vocation hearing, the tria l c ourt revoked Y ork’s communi ty supervision a n d sentenced him to twenty

- four months’ confinement in state jail. On appeal, York argues that the evidence is insufficient to support the trial court’s finding that he viol ated at least one term or con dition of his community supe r vision. York also
argu e s that the judgment must be modified (1) to re flect that the trial court did not find the
State’s abandoned allegations true and (2) to replace references to Condition 10, which was n ot applicable to York’s case, with Condition 8 . We conclu de that the tr i al court did not abuse its discretion by revoking York’s community supervision but sustain York’s point of error asserting
that the trial court’s judgment must be modified. As modif ied below, w e affirm the trial cou rt’s judgme nt.3

I. The T rial Co urt Did N ot Abuse Its Discretion by Revo king Community Supervision
In his first point of error, York challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the trial court’s decision that he viol ated two terms and conditions of his comm unity supervi sion.
A. Sta n dard of Review

“ The trial court holds very broad discretion over community supervision, its revocation,
and its modification. ” Pierce v. State , 113 S.W.3d 431, 436 (Tex. App.

— Tex arkana 2003, pet.
ref ’ d ) . “ Consider ing the uni que nature of the revo ca tion hearing and the trial court ’ s broad discretion in the proceedings, the general standards for reviewing

. . . sufficiency do not apply. ”
Id. Instead , w e review an order revoking comm unity supervision under an abuse

- of

- discreti on standard. Rickels v. Sta t e , 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Hammack v. State , 466 S.W.3d 302, 304 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2015, no pet.); Pierce , 113 S.W.3d at 436.
The State ’ s burden of proof to rev oke community supervision is by a prepondera nce of
the ev idence. Ri ckel s , 202 S.W.3d at 763; Pierce , 113 S.W.3d at 436. The revocation order is “supported by a preponderance of the evidence” if the “greater weight of the cre dible
evidence

. . . would cre ate a reasonable belief that the defendant h as violated a conditio n of h i s [commun ity supervision] .” Rickels , 202 S.W.3d at 763

– 64 (quoting Scamardo v. State , 517
S .W.2d 293, 298 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974)). Assessing the witnesses ’ credibility “ and the weight to be given their tes timony ” is the role of the trial c ourt. William s on v. State , 589 S.W.3d 292, 297 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2019, pet. ref ’ d)

. As a result, w e “ review all the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court ’ s judgment

. ” Id

.4

B. The Revocation Proceedings
The S t ate filed a motion to revoke York’ s community supervision , raising the following allegatio ns of violations of the terms and conditions of his commu nity supervision : Condition 2. Defendant f ailed to report in p erson, as scheduled, to the Community Supervision and Corrections Department (CS C D ) of Lam ar County, or the county in which [he was ] permitted to reside; to wit: June 2 0 22.
Condition 10. [ 1 ] Defendant fa iled to perform 250 hours of Com mu nity Se r vice Restitution (CSR) work, and abide by all rules of the CSR program

. [ 2 ]
At the revoc a t ion hearing, Megan Mitchell, York’s community supervision officer , t e stified tha t York violated Condition 2 of his commu nity supervision by failing to report in
p ers on in June 2022. Mitchell said that York reported in July 2022, but offered no excuse fo r failing to report in June. York admitted that h e did not re port in person in June 2022 but claimed
it was because his “vehicle broke down” and he could not get a r ide. York said th at he had called Megan “several months in advance

-- prior to June an d t o l d her [ his] vehicle was broke [n]
down

. ”
A s for the community service condition, Mitchell said that York’s failu re to do any community service had been “a con t inu ing issu e.” She testified, “I have asked [York] several times and he just will not do it. ” As a resu l t, Mitchell tes tified that she asked for a status hearing
in Novembe r 2022, which resulted in explicit instructions as to how much community service
Y ork needed to perfo rm every month, but those instructions are not in our appellate record.
M i t c h ell said that, since York was placed on community supervision on Octob er 29, 2021, he

1 As explained below, this should have been label ed as Condition 8.

2 The S tate also asserted several fa ilure

- to

- pa y allegations that were abandoned.5

had only completed twenty

- two of the two hundred and fifty hours ord ered. York admi tted tha t he did not complete community service as ordered because he h ad to care f o r his f amily, including a disabled wife and daughter , had to “catch up on

. . . bill s,” and “ honestly did not have time.” York ad ded that he did no t obtain another vehicle u ntil Nov ember 2022, which made it
difficult to perform community se r vice. When a s ked to explain how he tried to comply with

co mmunity service requirements in Decembe r 2022, York said , “I didn’t on that.” York t estified
that he d i d not perform community s ervice i n February 2023 because he was “[w]ork in g , catching up on bills.”
York a cknowledged that he knew w hat he needed to do to comply with the terms and conditions of community supervision but did “not fully ” comply. After h e aring this evidence,
the trial co urt revoked York’s comm u nity supervisi o n. C. Analysis York challenges t he sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion
tha t he violated a term and condition of his community sup ervision. Specifi c ally, he argues that
ther e was in sufficient evidence to s how that he i nt entionally failed t o report

. W e f i n d that the State was not required to prove that York’s failure to appear w as intentional . We also find that the g reater weight o f credible evidenc e supported the trial cour t’s deci sion because York agree d
that he fail ed to appear as alleged by the State ’ s revocation motion. As a result, we find that the
trial court did not abu se its discretion by revoking York’s community supervis ion. 3

3 York also argues that the evidence was not sufficie nt t o s h ow that he failed to complet e community service as ordered because “the order imposed only a total of 250 hours to be c ompleted at some poi nt during the com mun i ty supervision,” and he still had am ple time to comply with that requirement. P roof by a p r epo n der ance of the evi dence as to any one of t he alleged violations will support a trial court’s decision to revoke co mmunity6

Condition 2 of York’s community sup ervision require d York to “[r]e p ort in person , as schedul ed, to the Community Sup e r vision and Corrections Department (CSCD) of Lamar County .” “ This conditio n of supervision has no requirement of a specific mens rea
. . . . ” Smit h
v. State , 06

- 12

- 00065

- C R , 2013 W L 238883 , at * 3 (Tex. App.

— Texarkan a Ja n. 23, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op., n o t designated for publication ) (citing Cano v. State , 01

- 00

- 01210

- CR , 2001
W L 1098023 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] Sept. 20, 2001 , no pet.) ( not de s ignated for pub lication) ( finding th a t S tate had no duty to prove volunt ary or intentional con duct because

m otion sought to revoke for failure to report) ) ; see Hardy v. State , 08

- 21

- 00076

- CR , 2022 WL 1210573, at *2 (Tex. App.

— El Paso Apr . 25, 2022 , no pet. ) ( no t designated for pub l ication ) ; Cessac v. Stat e , No. 13

- 17

- 00640

- CR, 2018 WL 3583744, at *2 ( Tex. App.

— C or pus Christi

– Edinburg July 26, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op., not desi gnated for publication) ( “ Generally, unless the issue in questi on is nonp ayment of rest itution or other sup e rvisory fees, the State has no du ty to prove v oluntary or intentional conduct wh e n t he terms of the community supervision do not specify a mens rea. ” )

. Because the State did not have to prove an intentional fai lure to re port, its
burd en was only to show, by a pr eponderance of evidence, t hat York fail ed to report in June
2022.
Mitch e l l’s testimony established that York did not report to the CSCD as ordered , and
York admitted his failure to report during h is testimo ny. As a result, the “ greater weight o f the
credible evidence

. . . create [d ] a reasonable belief that the defendant h a [ d ] violated a condition

superv ision. Moore v. Sta t e , 6 05 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex . Crim. A p p. [Panel Op.] 1980). Having found such proof to supp ort revo ca t i on o n o ne ground, we n eed n ot address the rema ining ground for revocation. See id

. ; Lively v. State , 338 S.W.3d 140, 143 (Tex. App.

— Texarkana 2011, no p et.)

.7

of his probation.” Rickels , 202 S .W.3d at 764

. Consequently, we find that the trial court did n ot abuse i ts discre tion by rev oking York’s community supe rvi s ion. We overrule York’s first po int
of error.
II. We Must Modify t he Tr i a l Court’s Judgment In his last point of error, York a rgues that the judgment must be modified. “This Court
has the power to c orrect an d modify the judgment of the trial cour t f o r ac curacy when the
necessary da ta and information are part of the record. ” Anthony v. State , 531 S.W.3d 739, 743 (Tex. App.

— Texar kana 2016, no pet.) (citing T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v. State , 865
S.W.2d 2 6, 27 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v . S t ate , 813 S.W.2d 526, 529 (Tex . A pp.

— Dallas 1991, pet. ref ’ d) (en ban c) ). T h e State concedes the argument , and we agree.
The Stat e’s revocation motion alleged that York violated Condition 2 (t he failure to
repor t condition) , Conditio n 10, and Condition 30 (t he fa i lure

- to

- pay allegat i ons). The reporter’s

reco rd from the revoca t i on hearing showed that the State abandoned all of the Conditio n 3 0
failure

- to

- pay allegations, leaving only the allegations that Y ork v iolated Conditions 2 and 10. York pled n ot true to the alle gat i ons on the two condi tions at issue, but t he trial court f oun d b oth allegat ions true. Accordingly, i n the section of the judgment label ed “ Plea to Motion to Re voke , ” the trial

court indicated that York pl ed n ot true t o the allega tions concerning Conditio n 2 a nd Condition
10 and noted that the State aband on e d a l l C ondition 30 violations. Even so, the judgment recites,

“ After hea ring the State ’ s mo tion, Defendant ’ s plea, the evid ence submitted, and reviewing the
record , the C o u rt G RANTS the State ’ s motion and F INDS Defendant violated the following8

conditio ns o f c omm unity supervision: 2 , 10 , 30, 30A, 30B , 30D AND 30E .” York argues that this portion of the judgment must be modi fied to remove the Condition 30 allegat i ons , and we
agree. Al so, t he record shows th at Condition 8 was the condition that imposed c om m u ni t y

s ervice requirements and that Condition 10 did not apply. Therefore, York a rgues that the judgment should b e modified to replace Condition 10 wit h Con d itio n 8, and the St ate agrees. As a result, we sus tain York’s last point of error.
III. Disp o s i t io n We modify the “ Plea to Motion to Revoke ” portion of the t rial court’s judgme nt by replacing the notation that York pled n ot true to Condition s 2 and 1 0 with the no tation that he pled not true to Conditions 2 and 8

. We further modify the judgment b y r e pl a cin g the trial
court’s findings with the following: “ Defendant violated the following conditions of community supervisi on: 2 and 8 .” As modifi ed, w e affirm t he trial court’s judgment.

Jeff Rambin Justice
Date Submitted: November 1, 20 23 D at e De cided: November 8 , 2023
Do Not Publish