AFFIRM; Opinion Filed August 1, 2023 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-22-00746-CR MARVIN EARL SLACK, Slack V. THE STATE OF TE XAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 401st Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 401-82364-2021 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Molberg, Carlyle, and Smith Opinion by Justice Smith Marvin Earl Slack appeals from a judgment revoking his community supervision. In two issues, Slack argues that (1) the evidence is insufficient to support the revocation and (2) his original sentence was void and illegal because the trial court did not find the indictment’s e nhancement paragraphs to be true. We affirm the trial court’s judgment. Background Slack was indicted for theft of propert y valued at less than $2,500 with two prior theft convictions, a state jail felony. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN . §–2– 31.03(e)(4)(D). The indictment containe d two enhancement pa ragraphs, which if proven to be true, would elevate the punishme nt range for the charged offense to that of a second-degree felony. See id. § 12.425(b). Slack signed a plea agreement in whic h he judicially confessed to the enhanced charge and pleaded true to the indictment’s enhancement paragraphs. The plea agreement stated that the punishment range for the offense was two to twenty years’ confinement. At his plea proceeding, the trial court admonished Slack that he was charged with a state jail felony offense enhanced to a second-degree felony with a range of punishment from two to twenty years’ confin ement. Slack answer ed “yes” when the trial court asked if he still wished to plead guilty knowing that he must be sentenced within the second-degree felony range. Slack then entered a plea of guilty to seconddegree felony theft and true to the enha ncement allegations. The trial court sentenced Slack to ten year s’ confinement, suspended for ten years of community supervision. Among other community supervision cond itions, Slack was prohibited from entering the premises of a TJ MAXX, HomeGoods, or Marshalls store. The State subsequently moved to revoke Slack’s community supervision. A second amended motion to revoke included six allegations—three theft offenses and three entries into a TJ MAXX and HomeGoods store. Slack pleaded not true to the six allegations. Following a hearing, the tr ial court found five of the six allegations–3– true, revoked Slack’s community supervisio n, and sentenced him to six years’ confinement. This appeal followed. Revocation of Community Supervision In his first issue, Slack asserts the St ate failed to present sufficient evidence to justify revocation of his community supe rvision. The States responds that there was ample evidence proving that Slack entered a HomeGoods store and committed thefts in Tarrant and Walker Counties in violation of the terms of his community supervision. We review an order revoking community supervision for an abuse of discretion. Rickels v. State , 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). We review the evidence in the light most fa vorable to the trial court’s decision in determining whether the trial c ourt abused its discretion. See Cardona v. State , 665 S.W.2d 492, 493 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984); Garrett v. State , 619 S.W.2d 172, 174 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1981)). The trial court is the sole judge of the witnesses’ credibility and the we ight to give the evidence. See Hacker v. State , 389 S.W.3d 860, 865 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). On a motion to revoke, the State has the burden to prove a defendant violated a condition of community supervision by a preponderance of the evidence. Rickels , 202 S.W.3d at 763–64. A preponde rance of the evidence is “that greater weight of the credible evidence whic h would create a reasonable be lief that the defendant has violated a condition of his [c ommunity supervision].” Id. at 764; Dansby v. State ,–4– 468 S.W.3d 225, 231 (Tex. App. —Dallas 2015, no pet.). Pr oof of a single violation of community supervision is suffi cient to support revocation. Smith v. State , 286 S.W.3d 333, 342 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); Olabode v. State , 575 S.W.3d 878, 880 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2019, pet. re f’d). If the State fails to meet its burden of proof, the trial court abuses its discreti on by revoking community supervision. Dansby , 468 S.W.3d at 231. The State’s second amended motion to re voke alleged that Slack violated the terms of his community supervision by, among other things, making entry into a HomeGoods store on or about December 27, 2021. Javier Rocha, an investigator for TJX, the parent company of TJ MAX X, HomeGoods, and Marshalls, testified at the revocation hearing. According to Roch a, TJX investigators had connected Slack to 289 theft incidents in their stores over a nine-year period starting in July 2013. Slack was their “most familiar” shoplifter. And, having investigated shoplifting incidents involving Slack since 2013, Ro cha was very fam iliar with Slack’s appearance and schemes. Rocha identified Slack in the courtroom. Rocha testified that he was notified that a gentleman ha d tried to return a large number of bedsheets to a HomeGoods stor e on Rio Grande Boulevard in Euless, Texas on December 27, 2021. Rocha reviewed the store’s surveillance video of the incident and observed that Slack was in the store with the gentlema n. Rocha testified that Slack also entered th e same HomeGoods store on January 13, 2022, by himself with a shopping cart of bedsheets.–5– Rocha pulled still photographs from th e December 27, 2021 surveillance video and forwarded them to the district a ttorney’s office. Rocha testified that the photographs, which were admitted into eviden ce without objection, were a fair and accurate depiction of the surveillance vi deo and what transpired on December 27,
2021. Slack complains that the photogra phs are poor-quality images, but the evidence showed that Rocha identified Slack in the Home Goods store on December 27, 2021, after reviewing the store’s surveilla nce video. Slack also complains that Rocha’s testimony is conclusory because th e State did not establish how Rocha had personal knowledge that the video or still photographs were a fair and accurate representation of the store, how he came into possession of the video, or how he made the still photographs. The evidence, however, established that Rocha had served as a TJX organized retail crime investig ator for nine years. In that role, he provided support to approxi mately ninety TJ MAXX, HomeGoods, and Marshalls stores in North Texas, Okla homa, and parts of Louisiana. He worked the larger, organized thefts, which usually involved tw o or more people working in concert. According to Rocha, when th e investigators receive a report, like a report concerning a large return, they are able to pull up the in-store cameras and see the transaction as it took place. Pulling up survei llance video from the stores, looking at it, and pulling still photographs from the video as needed wa s part of his job investigating thefts.–6– And, the still photographs admitted into ev idence reflect that they are images from video taken at the HomeGoods store in Euless on December 27, 2021. On this record, we conclude that Ro cha’s testimony was not conclusory and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Slack violated a condition of his community supervision. As the sole judge of the witnesses’ credibility and the weight to be given their testimony, the trial court was free to accept or reject any or all of the testimony. See Hacker , 389 S.W.3d at 865; Davila v. State , 547 S.W.2d 606, 609 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977). The trial c ourt chose to believe Rocha’s testimony that, based on years of investigating Slack, he was familiar with Slack’s appearance and, based on his review of the store’ s December 27, 2021 surveillance video footage, Slack entered the store that day in violation of the terms of his community supervision. See, e.g. , Conyers v. State , 864 S.W.2d 739, 741 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, pet. ref’d) (even though co mplainant did not identify defendant as perpetrator and identification evidence c onsisted solely of videotape in which defendant claimed he was not identifiabl e, evidence was sufficient to support aggravated robbery convic tion based on still photos fro m videotape and testimony of third party not present at time of offens e that person in videotape was defendant). The still photographs, although of poor qua lity, supported Rocha’s testimony. Reviewing the evidence in the li ght most favorable to the trial court’s judgment, we conclude, as the trial court did, that th e greater weight of the credible evidence–7– created a reasonable belief th at Slack entered the HomeG oods store in Euless, Texas on December 27, 2021, violating a cond ition of his community supervision. Because proof by a preponderance of the evidence of any one of the alleged violations of Slack’s community supe rvision was sufficient to support the revocation, see Smith , 286 S.W.3d at 342, we need not address Slack’s arguments regarding the trial court’s findings as to the remaining allegations. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.1 (requiring appellate courts to addr ess only issues necessary for disposition of appeal). We overrule Slack’s first issue. Void and Illegal Sentence In his second issue, Slack asserts his original sentence was void and illegal because the trial court failed to find the in dictment’s enhancement paragraphs to be true. The State responds that Slack was pr operly sentenced because he pleaded true to the enhancement paragraphs and the tria l court implicitly found the enhancements paragraphs true by sentencing him to the appropriate puni shment range. A plea of true to an enhancement paragr aph relieves the State of its burden to prove the prior conviction alleged for enhancement. Wilson v. State , No. 05-18- 00801-CR, 2019 WL 3491931, at *5 (Tex. A pp.—Dallas Aug. 1, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (citing Ex parte Rich , 194 S.W.3d 508, 513 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006)). A trial court makes an implied finding of true to an enhancement allegation when the record esta blishes the truth of that allegation. See id. And, a trial court implies a finding of true to an enhancement allegation if the–8– trial court imposes a sentence outside of the range for the underlying offense but within the range for the offense as enhanced. See id. ; Harris v. State , No. 05-02- 01728-CR, 2005 WL 639388, at *1–2 (Tex. App. —Dallas Mar. 21, 2005, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication) (even t hough trial court made no oral or written findings on two prior convictions, punishm ent imposed fell within enhanced range and, thus, trial court implie dly found enhancemen t paragraphs to be true). The trial court did not enter written fi ndings of true in the judgment of conviction. However, as reflected by the plea agreement’s terms, which the judgment incorporated by reference, and the reporter’s record of the plea hearing, Slack pleaded true to both enhancement pa ragraphs in the indictment. This is sufficient to prove his prior convictions. See Wilson , 2019 WL 3491931, at *5. And, the trial court sentenced Slack to ten y ears’ confinement, wh ich was outside the punishment range for the underlying theft o ffense, but within the range for the offense as enhanced. In doing so, the tr ial court impliedly fo und the enhancement allegations true. See id. Because the record contains sufficient evidence from which the trial court could make the implied fi ndings, Slack’s sentence was not void or illegal. See Harris , 2005 WL 639388, at *1–2. We overrule Slack’s second issue.–9– Conclusion The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

Do Not Publish T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b) 220746F.U05 /Crai g Smith / CRAIG SMITH JUSTICE–10– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT MARVIN EARL SLACK, Appellant

No. 05-22-00746-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 401st Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 401-82364- 2021. Opinion delivered by Justice Smith. Justices Molberg and Carlyle participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this da te, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED

. Judgment entered this 1st day of August, 2023.