iii i i i



### MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-07-00846-CR David Ringo AVALOS , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2004-CR-2611 Honorable Mary Roman, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Alma L. López, Chief Justice Sitting: Alma L. López, Chief Justice Catherine Stone, Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Delivered and Filed: September 10, 2008
AFFIRMED David Ringo Avalos challenges the revocation of his community supervision for the offense of theft. Avalos contends the trial court abused its discretion in revoking his community supervision because the evidence was legally insufficient to pr ove that Avalos committed theft in either Bexar or Guadalupe County. We affirm the trial court’s judgment revoking Avalos’s community supervision.04-07-00846-CR

-2- B ACKGROUND In April of 2004, Avalos was i ndicted on two counts of theft of service in an amount more than $1,500 but less than $20,000. Pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, Avalos pled nolo contendere and was sentenced to two years’ commun ity supervision commencing February 9, 2006. Avalos was also ordered to pay restitution of $5,874. On September 25, 2007, the State filed a motion to revoke Avalos’s community supervision, alleging that Avalos violated condition number one of his community supervision by committing an o ffense against the laws of the State of Texas, i.e. theft in Guadalupe County on or about February 27, 2006 and theft in Bexar County on or about October 26, 2006. At a hearing on th e motion to revoke, Avalos pled “not true” to both allegations. After hearing testimony from several witnesses, th e trial court found both a llegations “true,” revoked Avalos’s community supervision, and sentenced Avalos to two years’ confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice – State Ja il Division, with a $250 fine. Avalos appeals. A PPLICABLE L AW In a hearing on a motion to revoke community supervision, the State bears the burden to prove its allegations by a preponderance of the evidence. Cobb v. State , 851 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). The State meets its burde n when the greater weight of the credible evidence creates a reasonable belief that the de fendant violated a condition of his community supervision. Rickels v. State , 202 S.W.3d 759, 764 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) . “It is the trial court’s duty to judge the credibility of the witnesses and to determine whether the allegations in the motion to revoke are true or not.” Garrett v. State , 619 S.W.2d 172, 174 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1981). An appellate court reviews the trial c ourt’s order revoking community supervision under an abuse of discretion standard. Id. We indulge all inferences in a light favoring the trial court’s ruling, Jones v. State , 589 S.W.2d 419, 421 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979), and sustain the04-07-00846-CR

-3- order of revocation if the evidence substantiates a single violation. Jones v. State , 571 S.W.2d 191, 193-94 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1978). A NALYSIS During the hearing on the motion to revoke Avalos’s community supervision, the State introduced the testimony of Paul Castillo regarding the alleged February theft and Detective Edward Oviedo and Laura Miskell regarding the alleged October theft. Because we conclude the State introduced sufficient evidence to create a reasonable belief that Avalos violated a condition of his community supervision vís-a-vís his dealings w ith Castillo, we will c onsider only the testimony regarding the alleged February offense. Castillo had previously contracted Avalos to do work for Castillo which Avalos completed and for which he was paid. Castillo decided to further contract Avalos to install a sprinkler system for $4,000, i.e. ten sprinkler zones at $400 each. Ca stillo testified that he initially gave Avalos $1,000 on February 7, 2006 as a down payment for the in stallation of the sprinkler system. Castillo then gave Avalos another $3,000 on February 27, 2006 because Avalos called Castillo at work and said he needed $3,000 “to pick up some parts that were . . . discounted [only] that day.” Castillo gave Avalos an additional $3,000 for a total of $4,000 which corresponded to the quoted price of the sprinkler system. Castillo’s cancelled check for $3,000 was introduced into evidence. Castillo testified that on the same day that he gave Avalos the $3,000 check, Castillo’s wife discovered Avalos was not authorized to operate intheir city. Castillo tried to stop payment on the check, but it had already been cashed on February 27, 2006. Castillo phoned Avalos several times to find out when Avalos was goi ng to start work on the sprinkler system; however, Avalos always had an excuse as to why he could not begin work such as: it was going to rain; he did not have a crew available; and he had another job in another town. When Castillo finally asked Avalos to04-07-00846-CR

-4- return the money, Avalos “became very irrational, screamed at [Castillo] on the phone, said he was going to fuck [Castillo] up, and hung up on [Castillo].” Castillo reported Avalos’s threat to the local police who contacted the Texas Rangers because Avalos was on community supervision. The Texas Rangers took a report from Castillo’s wife and f iled a criminal complaint for theft with Bexar County. Castillo did not see Avalos after he ga ve Avalos the $3,000 check until the hearing. Avalos never began work on the sprinkler system and never produced the sprinkler parts. Avalos testified on his own behalf. Avalos claimed that Castillo had lied about the work to which the $3,000 was supposed to be applied. Aval os claimed “it was for other work I had done. And [Castillo] had already used that money up on othe r work. I have that in writing, but my lawyer didn’t bring it today.” Avalos admitted that he di d not install a sprinkler system “because the money had been used up in other project s I had done for [Castillo].” Avalos also testified that he had not threatened Castillo even though Avalos admitted “I’m sure that I got a little angry. Yeah. I mean, I think that when it comes to a money type situation that, you know, but I didn’t—when you say raise my voice, it wasn’t much more than this.” When asked if Avalos had ever threatened anyone, Avalos responded, “Yeah. I’m not innocent of . . . threatening people. Yeah.” Because it is the trial court’s duty to determine the credibility of the witnesses and decide whether the defendant violated a condition of his community supervision, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s decision. Garrett , 619 S.W.2d at 174. Avalos admitted he received $4,000 from Castillo and did not install a sprinkler system for Castillo. Avalos claimed the $4,000 paid to him by Castillo was for other work he had completed for Castillo even though Castillo’s cancelled check for $3,000 listed “s prinkler/landscape” on the memo line. Avalos also denied threatening Castillo even though he ad mitted that he got angry with Castillo and had threatened other people. The trial judge could have reasonably chosen to believe Castillo’s account04-07-00846-CR

-5- of the events and not to believe Avalos’s version. See Taylor v. State , 604 S.W.2d 175, 179 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980). We conclude the State presented sufficient evidence to create a reasonable belief that Avalos violated condition number one of his community supervision by committing the offense of theft against Paul Castillo. See Rickels , 202 S.W.3d at 764. The evidence showed Avalos appropriated at least $3,000 from Cas tillo with the intent to deprive Castillo of the money and the associated services, therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Avalos’s community supervision. Avalos’s sole issue is overruled. C ONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment revoking Avalos’s community supervision.

Alma L. López, Chief Justice

DO NOT PUBLISH