NO. 07-08 -017 6-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 C FEB RU ARY4, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ CLARENCE HIGH, A/K/A CLARENCE H. HIGH, A/K/A CLARENCE H. HIGH, JR., APPE LLA NT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 10 8 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF P OT T ERCOU NT Y; NO . 54, 080- E; H ON ORABLE ABE LOPEZ , J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Pursuantto a ple a barg ain , Appel lan t, Cl arence Hi g h, a/k/a Cl arence H. H ig h, a/ k/a Cla re n ce H. Hi gh, Jr. , p le a d e d guil ty to th e f t o ver $ 1 ,5 0 0 b u t u n d e r $2 0 ,0 0 0 in exch a n ge for a sente n ce o f

two y ears c onfinement, su spend ed i n fav or of four y ears c ommunity supe rvisio n. The Stat e l ater fil ed a moti on to rev oke communi ty su per v is ion al leg ing2

numerous v iol ati ons of the te rms and condi ti ons thereof. U pon Ap pel lan t’ s p lea of not tr ue to t he al leg ati ons, the cour t heard ev ide nce and thereafter re v oked communi ty su per v is ion a n d im p o s e d t h e o ri gi n a l s e n t e n c e o f two ye a rs co n f in e m e n tin a st a t e ja il fa c il it y. By a sol e iss ue, Appel lan t contend s t he tr ial co urt er ro neous ly rev oked communi ty

su per v is ion be c au s e he p rov ed t he a ffir ma ti v e de fen s e of i na bi l i ty t o pa y . W e affi r m. T he ch arges aga i nst Appellan t stem me d f rom n um erou s instan ces of w riting checks to merchant s o v er

a pe ri od of four years w hic h were al l dis honore d by hi s b ank. The State ’s m o ti on to rev oke all eg ed th at A ppel lan t c ommitt ed th e foll ow ing v iol ati ons of communi ty

su per v is ion : (a ) faile d to pay

su per v is ion f e e s in the amount o f $30 per month for Nov ember

2007; (b ) faile d to make p ay ment as per pay ment ar ra ng eme n ts wit h the Potter Cou nty C oll ect ion s D epar

tment; (c) failed to p ay $1 40 per mo nth t oward restitu tion for the m ont hs of Februa ry 2007 t hroug h N ov ember 2007; (d) fa iled to com plete Comm unity Serv ice Restitut ion atthe rate of six hou rs per month for th e months of Janua ry 2007 throug h October 2007; (e ) faile d to compl ete t he financ ial manag ement c las s; and (f) fail ed to pay $100 to Cr ime Vi cti ms Compen sat ion Fund on or before the 1stday of Nov ember

2007. St and ard o f Rev iew W hen rev iew ing an order revoking com mu nity supe rv ision, th e sole question before thi s C our

t is w hether the t ri al cour t abu sed it s d is creti on. Car dona v . St ate , 665 S.W .2d3

492, 493 (Tex .C rim. Ap p . 1 984) ; Jacks on v . St ate , 645 S.W .2d 3 03, 3 05 ( Tex .C ri m.App. 1983) . In a re v ocat ion p ro ce e d ing , t he St ate mus t prov e by a preponderance of the evidence th at th e prob ation er v iolate d a cond ition of comm unity supervisi on a s alleged in the moti on to rev oke. Cob b v . St ate , 851 S.W .2d 871, 874 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1993) . If the Stat e fa i l s t o m e e ti t s b u rd e n o f p ro o f, t h e t r i a l c o u rta b u s e s i t s d i s c re t i o n i n re v o k ing co m munity

su per v is ion . Car

dona , 6 6 5 S . W . 2 d a t 4 9 4 . I n d e t e r mi n i n g t h e s u ffi c i e n cyof the e v ide nce to s ust ain a re v ocat ion , w e v iew the ev ide nce in the l ig ht mos t fav orabl e to the t ri al cour

t' s r uli ng . Jones

v. Sta te , 589 S.W .2d 4 19, 421 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1979) . W hen more than o n e vio lat ion of the c ondi ti ons of community su per v is ion i s found b y

the tr ial court, the revocation order shal l b e a f f irmed if on e suf

f icient ground supp orts the court's order . Mo or

e v . St ate , 605 S.W .2d 9 24, 9 26 (Tex .C ri m.App. 1980) ; Leachv. Sta te , 170 S.W .3d 6 69, 6 72 ( Tex .App. –For t W orth 20 05, p et. re f'd). Discus sion In respon se to A ppel lan t’ s c ontent io n thathe p ro v ed i nabi li ty to pay , t he St ate argues tha t w e ne ed n ot de cide w het her the a f f irmative d efense was estab lished b ecau se the S tate all eg ed and prov ed th at rev ocat ion wa s a lso based o n c ondi ti ons unrela ted t o App ellant ’s f inan cial cond ition, i.e., failure to co mp lete co mm unity serv ice restitutio n hou rs and fail ure to c o m p let e a fin anci al manag ement c las s. W e ag re e w it h the Sta te an d reiterate thatone suf

f icient ground supp orts a revocation o rder.4

Terr i Cross lan d, A ppel lan t’ s c ommunity su per v is ion off ic er , t est ified at the h ear ing on th e St ate’ s mot ion to re v oke that Appel lan t di d not complete ev en one hour of the 200 com mu nity serv ice hou rs assessed as a cond ition of comm unity su p e rvi s io n. She also tes ti fied th at de spi te Appel lan t being gi v en all the neces sar y i nformati on on how

to re g is ter for a money

manag ement c ourse w hic h was offered ev er y other month ata l ocal co ll eg e, he nev er co mplet ed th e c ourse as re q uire d b y the ter ms and co ndi ti ons of community supe rv ision. Crossland was no t cross-ex am ined regarding the se v iolation s. W e c oncl ude t he St ate p ro v ed by a preponderance of the ev ide nce that Appel lan t v iol ated the t er ms and co ndi ti ons of community su per v is ion . The tr ial co urt’ s rev ocat ion orde r recites co mm unity supervisi on violations of not on ly cond itions relate d to Ap pellan t’s inab ility to pay, but also of

his fa ilure to com plete the com mu nity serv ice restitutio n ho urs and the m one y

man agem entprogram. T he trial cou rt did no tabu se its discretion in re v oki ng Appel lan t’ s c ommunity su per v is ion and sent enci ng him to two y ears c onfinement in a s tate jai l facil ity . Appel lan t’ s s ole i ss ue i s o v er ru led . Con seq uentl y , t he tr ial co urt’ s o rd er rev oki ng co mmunity

su per v is ion i s a ff ir med. Pat rick A. Pirtle Justice Do not p ubl is h.