NO. 07-06 -039 3-CR IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL A JU LY10, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ RICHARD LEE W ILL IAMS, JR., AP PEL LANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 11 4 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF S MI T H CO UNT Y; TH NO . 114 -2 003- 03; H ON ORABLE CY NTH IA K EN T, JU DG E

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL a nd HANCOCK an d PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t, Ri chard Lee W il li ams, Jr ., appeal s from a j udg ment rev oki ng co mmunity super v is ion and impos ing se ntenc e pursuantto a conv icti on for Posses si on of M ar ihu ana. W e affi r m. Appel lan t pl ed g uil ty to the offense of po ss ess ion of mari huana, sta te j ail felony , on Febr uar y 25, 2004 an d was sent enced to two y ears confinementin the Stat e J ail D iv is ion of the T exas Departm entof Cri min al Justice an d f ined $5 , 0 0 0 ; howev er, the trial court probated the s entenc e and pla ced appel lan t on communi ty su per v is ion for fiv e y ears. On2

Ma y 6, 2006, the Stat e filed an appl ic ati on to re v oke appel lan t’ s c ommunity su per v is ion
. The Stat e the n fil ed an amended a p p lic a tion on Aug ust23rd. The a mended app li cat ion all eg ed th at ap pel lan t had co mmitte d fiv e v iol ati ons of his co mmunity su per v is ion : ( 1) fa il in g t o re p o rtt o h is co m m u n it y su p e rvi s io n o f f ic e r fo r t h e m o n t h s o f

Ma rc h , A p ri l, Ma y, June, and Jul y

2006; ( 2) fail ing to noti fy his communi ty super v is ion off ic er of a chang e of address ; ( 3) us ing or

co nsumi ng m ar ihu ana w hil e on communi ty su per v is ion ; ( 4) fail ing to pay the super

v is ion fees for the months of March, Apr il , M ay , J une, and J uly 2006; and (5 ) faili ng to comp le te the D ru g Offender E ducat ion prog ra m. A ppel lan t pl eaded “ tr ue” to failu re to re por

t t o hi s c ommunity

su per v is ion off ic er

i n J uly 2006 and t o us ing or consum ing mar ihu ana w hil e on communi ty su per v is ion
. After the rev ocat ion hear ing on Sep tem ber 12 th, th e trial court foun d four of the allegatio ns true, rev oked app ellant ’s communi ty

su per v is ion , reformed t he or ig ina l sent ence, and ordered appel lan t t o s er v e 18 months i n the Sta te J ail D iv is ion of the Texas Dep artment of Cr imi nal Ju sti ce. Appel lan t fil ed hi s n oti ce of a p p e a l cont endi ng thatthe tr ial co urt c ommitt ed re v ersi ble er ro r in findi ng that appel lan t had commi tted the v iol ati ons all eg ed by the Stat e and req uest ed th at t hisC our t rein sta te hi s c ommunity su per v is ion
. A com mu nity supe rv ision revocation p rocee ding is neither a cr imina l nor a ci v il tri al, but i s rather

an a dmini strati v e proceed ing
. Cob b v . St ate, 851 S .W .2 d 8 71, 8 73 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1993) . The S tate must prov e by a preponderance of the ev ide nce that a defendant v iolat e d t h e t er ms of hi s c ommunity su per v is ion
. See i d. For

er ro r to be re v ersi ble , w hen rela ted t o non- cons ti tuti onal is sues , the t ri al cour t mus t c ommit an er ro r that affect s a ppel lan t’ s s ubst anti al ri g hts w hic h c annot be di sreg arded. T EX . R. A PP . P.3

44.2( b)
. In an order

rev oki ng community

su per v is ion , our

rev iew i s l imi ted t o det er mini ng w hether the tr ial co urt abu sed it s dis creti on. See C ardona v . St ate, 665 S. W .2d 4 92, 4 93 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1984)
. In a communi ty su per v is ion revoca ti o n heari ng , an abuse of dis creti on oc curs w hen t he tr ial j udg e's dec is ion was so cl ear ly w ro ng as to li e out si de th at z one w it hin w hic h reason able p e rsons mig ht di sag re e. See B ru mbalow v . St ate, 933 S.W .2d 2 98, 3 00 ( Tex .App. –W aco 1996, writ re f’d)
. The ev ide nce is v iewed i n the l ig ht most fav orabl e to the t ri al cour t' s o rd er . Johns on v . St ate, 943 S. W .2d 8 3, 85 (Tex .App. –Ho ust on [1 st Di st. ]1997, no pet.)
. See al so Gar re tt v . St ate, 619 S. W .2d 1 72, 174 ( Tex .C ri m.App. [Panel Op. ] 197 2)
. A pl ea of tr ue, s tandi ng al one, is su ff ic ien t t o suppo rta rev ocat ion order
. Col e v . St ate, 578 S. W .2 d 1 2 7 , 128 ( Tex .C ri m.App. [Panel Op.] 1979)
. In t hiscase, appel lan t pl ed tr ue to us ing mar ihu ana w hil e on communi ty su per v is ion
. Al th o u gh a p p e lla n t c o m p la in s t h a t n o evid e n ce wa s p re se n te d a t th e re voc a ti o n he a rin g, hispl ea of tr ue i s s uff ic ien t fo r th e t rial c our t t o hav e found thi s a ll eg ati on tr ue. Id. Therefore, we c oncl ude t hat t he tr ial co urt di d not commi t any er ro r in findi ng that appel lan t had v iol ated hisco mmunity su per v is ion by us in g mar ihu ana. As to the o ther v iol ati ons found to be tr ue by

the tr ial co urt, ev en were we t o a ss u m e tha t app ell ant i s c or re ct that the t ri al cour

t s houl d nothav e found the othe r all eg ed v iol ati ons tr ue, no rev ersi ble er ro r is sh ow n bec ause the t ri al co urt was jus ti fied i n rev oki ng appel lan t’ s c ommunity su per v is ion on the basi s of t he si ng le v iol ati on re lat ing to the use of mar ihu ana. See Dea l v . St ate, 640 S.W .2d 6 64, ( Tex .App. –Ho ust on [14th Di st. ] 1982, no pet.)
. See als o Hod g es v . St ate, No. 12- 0 2 -0 0136- CR , 200 3 W L 21544 212, at * 1 ( Tex .App. –Ty ler Ju ly 9, 2003, pet. re f’d)4

(mem . op. , notdesignate d for pub lica tion). Since the trial court cou ld have rev oke appel lan t’ s p ro bati on ba se d s ole ly on h is admi ss ion of usi ng mar ihu ana w hil e on com mu nity supe rvi s io n , we conclud e tha t the trial court did notabu se its discretion in re v oki ng appel lan t’ s p ro bati on. See M oore v . St ate, 605 S. W .2d 9 24, 9 26 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1980)
. Therefore, we c oncl ude t hat t he tr ial co urt did not c ommit re v ersi ble er ro r in findi ng any of the remaini ng v iol ati ons tr ue. Con cl usi on For the forego in g re a s ons, w e af f irm the trial court’s rev ocat ion of app ellant ’s communi ty

su per v is ion
. Mackey K. Hancock Justice

Do not p ubl is h.