## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 02 - 10 - 00305 - CR

LAMONTE K. BROWN APPELLANT
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

---------- FROM THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

---------- A ppellant Lamonte K. Brown appeals from his adjudication of guilt for delivery of m ore than four but less than two hundred grams of a controlled substance. We will affirm. Brown pleaded guilty to delivery of a controlled substance in 2001, and the
tria l court placed him on deferred adj udication community supervision

. In July 2010, the State filed its third petition to proceed to adjudication, alleging that

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.2

Brown had violated the terms and con ditions of his community supervision by (1) failing to pay fees, (2) failing to complete community service hours, and (3) failing to attend substance abuse counseling. At a hearing on the State’s petition, the State waived the fees allegation, and Brown p leaded true to the allegations that he had failed to complete comm unity service hours and had fail ed to attend substance abuse counseling. The trial court adjudicated Brown guilty and s entenced him to five years’ confinement

. In his only point, Brown argues that the trial court abused its discretion by adjudic a ting his guilt ―in light of overwhelming evidence that [ he ] had a viable explanation as to why he failed to complete his community service hours and failed to complete required substance abuse co unseling‖

— he had two seriou s back injuries and two jobs, and he missed counseling meetings because they conflicted with his employment. We review an order revoking community supervision under an abuse of
discretion standard. Rickels v. State , 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006); Cardona v. State , 665 S.W.2d 492, 493 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). In a revocation proceeding, the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated the terms and conditions of community supervisio n. Cobb v. State , 851 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). The trial court is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony, and we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial
court = s ru ling. Cardona , 665 S.W.2d at 493; Garrett v. State , 619 S.W.2d 172,3

174 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1981). A plea of true, standing alone, is sufficient to support the revocation of community supervision. Cole v. State , 578 S.W.2d 127, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979). Brown pleaded true to two of the State’s allegations, and he admitted at the hearing on the State’s petition that he had only completed thirty

- three out of
the 320 hours of community supervision that he had been ordered to particip ate in and to complete

. Therefore, w e hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by adjudicating Brown guilt y of the underlying offense

. See Moses v. State , 590 S.W.2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1979 ) ; Cole , 578 S.W.2d at 128 ; Ramos v. State , No. 02

- 08

- 00363

- CR, 2009 WL 1035120, at * 1

– 2 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth Apr. 16, 2009, pet. str uck ) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (holding that appellant’s plea of true to probation violation allegation was sufficient to support rev ocation notwithstand ing his explanation for
the violation

— a lack of transportation) . W e overrule Brown’s sole poi nt and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

B ILL MEIER JUSTICE
PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; MEIER and GABRIEL, JJ. DO NOT PUBLISH Tex. R. App

. P. 47.2(b )
DELIVERED: May 26 , 201 1