## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Tex as at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 2 2

- 00 0 65

- CR No. 02

- 22

- 00066

- CR

_______ ____________________

On Appeal from the 90th District Court Young County, Texas Trial Court No s . 1 1140 and 11254

Before Kerr , Bassel, and W omack , JJ. M emorandum Opinion by Justice Kerr 

### P H ILLIP 

### M ATTHEW 

### M APLES 

### , Appellant

V



### . T HE 

### S TATE OF 

### T EXAS2 MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant P hillip Mapl es appeals f r om two judgment s adjudicating guilt and revoking his probat ion

. 1 In a si ngle issue , Maples asse rts that the t rial cou rt vi olated
Rule 605 of th e Texas R ules of Evidence by improperly i nje cting its opin ion of the
evidence at the revocation hear ing

. We will affirm.
I. Background In July 2020, Maple s p leaded guilty to the off enses of retaliation and possession
of a contro lled substance (methamphetamine) in an a mount less than on e gram . Maples was granted deferred adjudi cation and placed on five years ’ probat ion

. 2
I n May 2021 , the State filed a motion to procee d with adjudication of guilt , alleging that Maples had violated numerous terms of h is pr obation

. Maples plea ded

“ not true ” to t he v iolations, and the trial court conducte d a hearing. Among the probation violations the State asserted was its a llegation that Maples had tested positive for both amph etamine and m ethamphe t amine

. At the
revocation hearing, Maples testi fied that he had ingeste d a pre

- workout supplement

1 Map les was ind icted fo r two separate offenses : re taliation and posses sion of a controlled subst ance ( methamphetamine ) in an amou nt less than one gram . The trial court established separate ca u se numbe rs for each of th e two offenses : Ca u se No. 11254 for reta l ia tion and Ca u se No. 1 1140 for possession of a contro l led substance

. Maples has fi led an appeal in each case. Because he raises the same issue in each appeal , we address both appeals in this o pinion

.

2 I n addition, Map les was ordered to pa y fine s to taling app roximat ely $ 1 , 115 a nd court co sts totaling $800

.3 called “ Kratom ” and that he believe d this had triggered a fals e positive for
metham p hetamine in one of his drug tests.
After both sides had rest ed an d the ev identiar y portion of the hearing w as completed, the trial court issued an oral ruling regarding the alleged probation
vi olat ions. During its ruling, the trial court add ressed Maples ’ s explanation for his posi tive m e thamphetamine test, stating , “ I d o not bu y your story. Noth ing tests positi ve for meth o r methampheta mine in my e xperience, so I ’ m making a finding of

true in that you did violate Condition Number 13. ” Having fou nd s everal other of the allege d probation viola tion s true, the trial

court s entenced Maples to six years ’ con fin ement on the ret aliation offense and eighteen months ’ confinement on the possession offense. 3 T his a ppeal follow ed.
II. Di s cuss ion On appeal, Maple s raises a single issue , argu ing that t he trial co urt ’ s com ment that it did not believe Maples ’ s testimony that his ingestion of “ Kratom ” had triggered
a false positive drug

- test resu lt because “ nothing tests positive fo r . . . meth amphet a mine ” viola ted Rule 605 of th e Texas R ules of Evidence. Maples ’ s argument lacks merit.
Rule 605 provides that “ [t] he presiding judge may not tes tify as a witness at

. . . trial. ” Tex. R. E vid. 605. The purpose of R ule 605 is to preserve the judge ’ s

3 These sentences are to run concurrently. Maples was also ord ered to pay fines to taling $1,500 and court costs totaling $922

.4 impa rtiality. O ’ Quinn v. Hall , 77 S.W.3d 438, 448 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi

– Edinburg 2002, no pet .). T hus, the judge may not “st ep down from the bench and become a witness in the very same proceeding over w hich he is currently presiding.” Hensarling v. State , 829 S.W.2d 168, 17 0 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992).
We hold t hat the tr ial court did not v iolate Rule 605 because the judge did not testify as a witness at the hearing

. See Kogel v. Robertson , No. 03

- 04

- 0024 6

- CV,
2005 WL 3234627 , at *4 (Tex. App.

— Austin Dec. 2, 2005, no pet .) (mem. op.)

. The
trial cour t ’ s commen t was n either testimony nor the “ fu nct io nal equi valent
of

. . . t estim ony. ” Hammond v. State , 799 S.W.2d 741, 746 (Tex. Crim. App. 1990 ) (quoting 27 W right & Gold, Federal Practice and Procedure: Federal Rules of
Evid ence § 6063, p. 353 (1990) )

. Rather, the co mment

— which was made afte r the
evide ntiary p ortion of the hearing had concluded and both s ides had r es t ed

— merely provided an explanation for the t rial cour t ’ s ruling. Such a description of the judge ’ s inter nal tho ugh t process does not violate Rule 605. See In re E.L.W. , No. 11

- 16

- 00010

- CV, 2 017 WL 3 90825, at *4 (Tex. App.

— Eastland Jan. 26, 2017 , no pet.) (mem. op.) (holding “ trial court’s comments

. . . did not implicate Rule 605 ” beca use the y “ were akin to an expl anation

. . . for the trial court’s eventua l ruling ” ); State v. Stewart , 282 S. W.3d 729 , 736

– 37 (Tex. App.

— Austin 2009, no pet.) (hol ding “a trial judge recalling, at a motion for new trial hearing, his own inte rnal thought processes” did
not violate Rule 605)

.5 Moreover, even if we were to agree with Maples , reversal would not be

wa rranted. T o p revail at a revocation hearing, the State is required to prove , by an evidentiary preponderance, only one probation violation

. Garcia v. State , 387 S.W.3d 20, 26 ( Tex. Crim. App. 2012); Bryant v. State , 391 S.W.3d 86, 93 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) ; Smith v. S tate , 286 S.W.3d 333, 342 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Leach v. State , 170 S.W.3d 669, 672 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 20 05, pet. ref’d). Thus, to win on appeal, an appellant must successfully challenge all grounds for revocation. Guerrero v.
State , 554 S .W.3d 26 8, 2 74 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, no pet.). Here, t he complaine d

- of commen t concerned only one of many probation violations alleged by
the State. Because the trial cour t found other alleged violation s to be true and Maples
has not challe nged th e se f indings, Maples ’ s contention regarding Rule 605 , even if
correct, would not provide grounds for r e versal

. See Moore v. State , 605 S.W.2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. [ Panel Op.] 1980) (“We need not address appellant ’ s other
contentions since one s ufficien t groun d for revocation will support the court ’ s order to revoke probation.”); Gobell v. State , 528 S .W.2d 223, 22 4 (Tex. Crim. App. 1975) (“Since the other finding upo n which probation was revoked is unchallenged, appellant ’ s contention, even if c orrect, would n ot show an abuse of discretion.”)

. III. Conclusion Having overruled Maples ’ s sole is sue, we affirm the tr ial court ’ s judgment s .6 /s/ Elizabeth Kerr Elizabeth Kerr Justice
Do No t Publis h T ex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered : March 16, 2023