# NO. 12-07-00405-CR IN THE COUR T OF APP EALS TWELFTH COURT OF APP EALS D ISTRICT

TYLER, TEX AS

CHRI S GERA LD KILLGO, § APPEAL F ROM THE 294TH APPELLANT V . § JUDICIAL DISTRI CT COURT OF TH E ST ATE OF TEX AS, APP ELL EE § V AN ZAN DT CO UN TY, T EXAS
MEMORA NDUM OPIN ION Chris Gera ld Killgo appe als the trial cour t’s revoc ation of his probation and a djudication of his guil t. In tw o iss ue s, Ap pe lla nt a rgue s th at th e tria l c ourt

a bu se d it s d isc re tio n b y

re vo kin ghis pr ob atio n b a se d u

po n in su ff

ic ie nt e vid e nc e . We a ff

ir m.
B ACKG ROUND 

## On May 4, 2006, Appellant pleade d guilty to the ag gravated sexual assault of a c hild. The trial court de fer

red theadjudication of

Appellant’s guilt and ordere d ten year s probation. On Janu ary 25 , 20 07 , the State mov e d fo r the tria l c ourt to r e vo keAp pe lla

nt’ s p ro batio n a

nd a dju dic ate his guilt. A hea

ring was held and the trial court found that Appellant had violated se vera l conditions of his probation. The trial court subseque ntly revoke d Appellant’s probatio n an d adjudicate d the a g gra vate d s e xua l a ssa

ult of a c hil d c ha rg e , fi nd ing him guil ty and a sse ssi ng his punis hme nt at f if ty year s of imprisonment and a $10,000 fi n e. T h e trial court subsequently signe d a judgment thatAp pel l antdoes not comp l ai n of t he i ncons i s t enc y s hown by t he r ecor d bet ween t he t r i al cour t ’ s ora l 1 f i nd i ngs and i t s wri t t en f i nd i ngs set f

o rt h i n i t s judgm ent
. W hen an ap p el l at e co urt revi ews a t ri al co urt ’ s f i nd i ngs s uppo r t i ng a r evoca t i on of probat i on, t he t r i al cour t ’ s wr i t t en f i ndi ng s ge ner al l y cont r ol over t he t r i al cour t ’ s ora l a n n o u n c e m e n t o f f

ind ing s. S e e , e.g ., A g u ila r v . S ta te , 5 4 2 S .W .2 d 8 7 1 , 8 7 4 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 7 6 ); B a lliv . S ta te , 5 3 0 S .W .2 d 1 2 3 , 1 2 5 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 7 5 ). B uts ee C o ff e y v . S ta te , 979 S. W
. 2d 326, 328 ( T ex . Cr i m. App. 1 9 9 8 ) (n o ting , i n d ic ta , a p re v io u s o p inio n a sse rting e x c e p tio n to ge n e ra l ru le ); M a zlo u m v . S ta te , 772 S. W
. 2d 131, 1 3 2 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 8 9 ) (a sse rting e x c e p tio n to ge n e ra l ru le ). T h is is p a rtic u la rly tru e w h e re the w ritten o rd e r is inc lud e d in the a p p e llate re c o rd to w h ic h no o bje c tio n ha s b e e n a d d re sse d
. J im in e z v . S ta te , 552 S. W
. 2d 469, 473 (T e x . C rim . A p p . 1 9 7 7 ); A b lo n v . S ta te , 53 7 S.W
. 2 d 26 7 , 26 9 (T ex. C ri m . A p p . 19 7 6 ).

T ex as Rul e of

Appel l at e Proc edu r e 38. 1( e) pr ov i des t h at“ t h e s t at eme n t of a n i s s u e or poi n t [ pr es en t ed f or 2 r evi ew] wi l l be t r eat ed as cove r i ng ev er y s ubs i di ar y ques t i on t hati s f ai r l y i ncl uded. ” T EX . R. A PP . P. 3 8 .1 (e ); Stat e v . B ai ley , 201 S. W
. 3d 739 , 743 ( T ex. Cri m. Ap p. 200 6). Rul e 38. 9 i ns t r uct s t hatt he bri ef i ng r ul es ar e t o be cons t r ued l i b eral l y , al l o wi ng t he ap p el l at e co urt t o “ requir e ad d i t i o nal bri ef i ng, and m ake any o t her ord er necess ary f o r a sati sf ac t o ry s ub m i ssi o n o f

t he ca se” i f

i t “d eterm i ne s . . . t ha t t he ca se ha s no t b ee n p ro p erly p rese nted i n the b rief s, or t hatt he l aw a nd au t hor i t i es ha ve not been proper l y ci t ed i n t he bri ef s . ” T EX . R. A PP . P . 3 8 .9 (b ); B ai ley , 201 S. W
. 3d a t 743- 44. N ei t h er of t h es e r u l es a u t h or i ze a c ou r t of a ppea l s t o r ev er s e a t r i al c ou r t on a n i s s u e t h atw as n ot ra ise d b y the a p p e llan t. See B ai ley , 20 1 S.W
. 3 d at 74 3
- 4 4
. I nst ead , s uch an act i s an ab use of dis cret i o n by t he co urt o f ap p e a ls. See i d. F u rth e r, w h ile c o u rts o f ap p e a l m a y ha v e the d isc re tio n to re v ie w un a ssig n e d e rr o r, s ee C arter v. S ta te , 656 S. W
. 2d 468, 468- 70 ( T ex . Cr i m. App. 1983) , a ppel l at e cou r t s “ ca n on l y s i t i n r ev i ew u pon ma t t er s of e rr o r e ithe r fun d a m e n ta l o r w h ic h a re p ro p e rly ra ise d up o n the trial, a n d p ro p e rly b ro u g h t b e fo re [th e a p p e llate cour t ]
. ” See M o re n o v . S ta te , 1 1 4 T e x . C rim . 5 5 9 , 5 6 1 , 2 6 S .W .2 d 6 5 2 , 6 5 3 (1 9 3 0 ) (o p . o n re h ’g) ; s ee al s o C arter , 6 5 6 S.W
. 2 d at 46 9 n. 4
. (quo t i ng M or en o )
. W e h ave det er mi ned t hatt he cas e bef ore us does not pre s entan 

## 2 c onta ine d a

writt e n f indingtha

t App ell ant h a d v iol ate d e ight c on dit ion s o f h is p ro batio n. Th is 1 

## appea l followed.
REV O C A TIO N O F 

## P ROB AT I ON 

## In tw o is su e s, Ap pe lla

nt a sse rt s th at th e tria l c ourt a bu se d it s d isc re tio n b y

re vo kin ghis probatio n b a s e d u

p o n in s u f f ic ie nt e v id e n c e . H o w e v e r , Ap p e ll ant h a s li mi te d th e s e is s u e s to one argume nt:

Speci f i cal l y , t he St at e f

ai l ed t o pr ove [ by s uf

f i ci ent evi dence ] t hatAp pel l antwas abl e t o pay but f ai l ed t o pa y f i n an ci al obl i g at i on s du r i n g t h e mon t h s of J u n e t o D ec embe r 2006. 

## The b r ie f s s u b mi tt e d b y Ap p e ll ant an d th e St ate r e f le c t th at, o f th e e ight c o n d it io n s th e trial court found Appe llant had violated, six of those related to “ financ ial obligations.” It is undisputed that the rema ining two c onditions related to per formingcommunity serviceand subm itting t o a polygraph examination. Theref

ore, A pp el l an t requests that we re versethe trial cour t’s judgme nt despite the fac t that two of the supportingfinding s contained in that judgment have not be en cha lleng ed. 2a p p ro p ria te situa tio n fo r th e re v ie w o f un a ssig n e d e rr o r re g a rd ing o n e o r b o th o f t h e two un c h a llen g e d fi n d ing s. See

Ta n n e r v . S ta te , 68 1 S.W
. 2 d 62 6 , 62 8 (T ex. A p p . – H o ust o n [14 t h D i st
. ] 19 8 3 , pe t
. ref’ d ) ( “Fund am ent al err o r occurs w h e n a d e fen d a n t’s righ ts a re inj u re d to the e x te n t t h a t he is d e n ie d a fair a n d im p a rtia l t ria l.”) ; s ee al s o A lm anza v. S ta te , 686 S. W
. 2d 157 , 171 ( T ex. Cri m. Ap p. 198 4)( op . on r eh’ g) ( “ O n t he ot her ha nd, i f no pr op er object i on was m a d e a t t ria l an d the a c c u se d m u st c la im tha t t h e e rr o r w a s ‘f u n d a m e n ta l,’ he w ill o b ta in a re v e rs a l o n ly i f t h e e rr o r is so egregi o us and creat ed s uch harm that he ‘ has not had a f ai r and i m p art i al t ri al ’
- i n s ho rt ‘ egregi o us harm
. ’ ”). See n ot e 2. 3 

## 3 “Appe llate re view of a

n order revokingprobation i s l i m i t ed to abuse of thetrial court’ s discretion.” Rickels v

. St ate , 2 0 2 S
. W
. 3 d

7 5 9 , 7 6 3 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 6 ) ( qu o t i n g Cardona v. Sta te , 665 S.W .2d 492, 493 (Te x . Crim. App. 1984)). Wherethe suffic iency of the e vidence su pp or tin ga tria l c ourt ’s de c isi on to re vo ke pr ob atio n is c ha lle ng e d, a tria l c ourt

do e s n ot a

bu se its dis cr etion if the greater we ight of cre dible evidenc e cr eate s a re asonablebelief that the defe ndant violated a c ondition of his probation. See Rickels , 2 02 S.W. 3d at 76 3- 64 ; Sc amard

o v . St ate , 517 S.W .2d 293, 298 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974). In case s wherethe trial cour t revoke s probation base d upon finding s that a def

endant violated mor e than onecondition of probation, such a re vocation does not constitute an abuse of discretion whe re a

ny singlefindingof a violation is held to be valid. See Mo orev . St ate , 605 S.W .2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim. Ap p . 1 9 8 0 ) (“W e nee d not addre ss [ the] a pp e lla nt’ s o the r c onte nti on s si nc e on e su ff ic ie nt gro un d f

or re vo c atio n w illsu

pp or t th e [tr ia l] c ourt ’s or de r t o r e vo kepr ob atio n. ” ); Bal li , 530 S.W .2d at 126 (“Therebeinga valid ground to justify re vo c atio n, we ne e d not co ns ide r [the ] a pp e lla nt’ s othe r co nte nti on that the e vid e nc e sh ow e d o nly a sing le use of a lcohol and did not ref lect an injurious or

vicious habit in violation of probation.”). Ap p el l an t h as fa iled to challeng e two of the eight probation violations that the trial court found. B eca

use one unc hallenged fi nding of a probation violation i s sufficient to support a trial c ourt ’s re vo c atio n o f p ro batio n, weov e rr uleAp pe lla

nt’ s f ir st a nd se c on d is su e s. 3 

## D I S P OS I T I ON 

## We a f f ir m thejudgme nt o f t

hetria l c ourt
. 

# J AME S T
. WOR T HE N

Chief Justice

## 4

Opinion delivere d July

2, 2008. Pane l co ns is t ed of

Wor then , C. J. , Gri

f f i th, J. , an d Hoyle, J.



## (DO N OT PUBLI SH)