### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-04-00665- CR

Jo hnny L e e St e e n, A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF CALDWELL COUNTY , 274TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 2001- 229, HO NORAB LE TODD BLO MERTH , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
I n October

2002, appellant Johnny

L ee Steen pleade d g uilty

to possessing more than four g rams of c ocaine
. SeeTex. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 481.115 (West 2003). The tr ial court adjudg ed him g uilty

and assessed his punishment at imprisonment f or ten y ear s. As ca lled for in a plea ba rg ain ag ree ment, the cour t suspended imposition of sentenc e and pla ced a ppellant on community

supervision for te n y ear s. This is an appea l from an or der r evoki n g s u p er vision and imposing sentenc e.

The c ourt found that appe llant violated the conditions of superv i s i o n by : (1)
ne g lig e ntl y

c a us ingbo dil y

inj ur y to a n e lde rl y pe rs on ; ( 2) fa ili ng to p ay or de re d c ourt

c os ts, supervision fee s, and re stitut ion; and (3) failing to pe rfor m ordere d community

supervision. In three2

points of err or, appellant challeng es the suff iciency of the e vidence to support these finding s. I n a fourth point, he complains that the c ourt failed to g ive him jail tim e cr edit to which he is entitled.

The State ha s the burd en of proving a violation of the terms and c onditions of community

supervision by

a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e. Cob b v . S tate , 851 S.W .2d 871, 874 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 93 ). I t me e ts this burd e n if the g re a te r w e ig ht o f c re dib le e vid e nc e c re a te s a
rea son ab l e belief that a condition of super vision was violated as a lleg ed. J e nk ins v . S tate , 740 S.W .2d 435, 437 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983). The violation of a single condition is sufficient to support
revoc ation. Mo or e v . S

tate , 605 S.W .2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980)
. Our re view of a
revoc ation order is lim ited to determining whether the trial cour

t abused its discretion. Cardona v. Sta te , 665 S.W .2d 492, 495 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984).

Th e c on dit ion s of sup e rv isi on re qu ir e d a pp e lla nt t o p e rf or m 24 0 h ours of

c omm un ity
se rv ic e by Marc h 1, 20 04 , a t a rate of 16 ho ur s pe r month. Th e e vid e nc e sh ow s th a t du ri ngthi s sa

me time period appe llant was also require d to pe rfor m 24 hours of community service as a condition of probation in a misdemea

nor ca se. At the re vocati on hear ing he ld in September 2004, appe llant’s probation off

icer testified that appellant had perf ormed some c ommunity

service hours that had be en
cre dited to the m isdemeanor , but that he had no cre dit for any community service in this cause . The witness added, “ The wa y it’s set up, since it’s bee n two y ear s, the d ea d l i n es, he could have completed the misdeme anor a n d d o n e s o m e i n the fe lony case . He’ s require d to do 16 hours min imum, 1 6 h ours a

month. An d ove r the tw o y e ars , he c ou ld have e a sil y c omp le te d 2 4 c omm

un ity service on the misdemeanor case and g otten some hours take n car e of on the felony case .”3 Appellant ar g ues that it was impossibl e for him to complete the re quired 240 hours of community

service within the time prescr ibed. As a simple mathematica l calculation demonstrates, this is not true. In any event, the greater weig ht of the c redible e vidence demonstrates that a pp e lla nt h a d a mpl e tim e to p e rf

or m some of the re quired c ommunity service hours, y et he ha d not perfor med any . The trial c ourt did not a buse its discr etion by

finding that appellant violated the condit i o n s o f h i s supervision by failing to perfor

m community

service as orde red. Point of er ror three is overrule d. We need not addr ess p o i n t s o n e an d two challeng ing the sufficie ncy of the
e vid e nc e wi th r e sp e c t to the oth e r a lle g e d v iol a tio ns .

I n p oint of

e rr or fo ur , app ell ant con te nd s th a t he is e nti tle d to c re dit fo r t he tim e
serve d in jail following his arre st on the motion t o revoke . Appellant does not state the amount of
c r e d it to w h ic hh e is e n ti tl e d , b u t t h e St a te c o n c e d e s th a t h e is e ntitled to cre d it f o r 7 1 d ay s . We there fore sustain point of error four and modify the re vocation orde r to g ive appe llant cre dit for 71 day s of time serve d.

As modified, the orde r re voking supe rvision is affirmed.

__________________________________________ W. Kenneth L aw, Chief Justice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Patter son and Pury ear Modified and, a s Modified, Aff irmed Filed: Apr il 13, 2006 Do No t Pu

bli sh