COURT OF A PPEAL S EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEX AS ELPASO, TEXAS

WI L L I AM CORBI

N L I FF I CK, J R., Appellant,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

. § § § § § § No. 08-08-00194- CR

Appea l from 112th District Court of Pecos County , Texas (TC # P-2659-112-CR)

O P I N I O N Wil liam Corbin L iffick, J r. appea ls a judgme nt revoking his community supervision. For the

rea sons that follow, we a ffirm.
F ACTUAL SUMMA RY On Fe bruar

y 20, 2007, Appellant waived his rig ht to a jury trial and enter ed a neg otiated plea of guilty to possession o f m arihua na. The trial court found him g uilty and in acc ordanc e with the plea barg ain, asses s ed Ap p ellant’s punishment at two y ear s in the state jail division, probate d for four y ear s, toge ther with a $2,000 fine. The State later fi l ed a m o t i on--a nd amende d motions--to revoke community supervision. At the contested hear ing, the State offe red business rec ords to prove that Appellant had committed new offe nses on J une 27, 2007 in I llinois and on September 15, 2007 1
in J eff Davis County , Texas, and that he had used marihuana and coca ine in violation of the terms 2

T h e m o t i o n t o r e v o k e a l l e g e d A p p e l l a n t c o m m i t t e d t h e o f f e n s e s o f p o s s e s s i o n o f m a r i h u a n a , p o s s e s s i o n o f 1

a f i r e a r m b y a f

e l o n , a n d d r i v i n g w h i l e l i c e n s e s u s p e n d e d o n J u n e 2 7 , 2 0 0 7 i n J o l i e t , G r u n d y C o u n t y , I l l i n o i s . T h e m o t i o n t o r e v o k e a l l e g e d A p p e l l a n t c o m m i t t e d t h e o f f e n s e s o f d r i v i n g w h i l e i n t o x i c a t e d , o p e r a t i n g a 2

m o t o r v e h i c l e o n a p u b l i c r o a d w a y w i t h a n e x p i r e d r e g i s t r a t i o n , a n d d r i v i n g a m o t o r v e h i c l e w i t h a n i n v a l i d l i c e n s e o n S e p t e m b e r 1 5 , 2 0 0 7 i n J e f f D a v i s C o u n t y , T e x a s .of commu n i t y s u pervision. The trial court did not admit the business rec ords in their entirety ; it

excluded the portions of the rec ords containing incident re ports by law enf orce ment office rs. The
State also relied on the testimony of t wo co m m u nity supervision office rs to prove technica l violatio n s and to prove that Appellant had left the supervising county and chang ed his place of residenc e without permission. Appellant testified on h i s own behalf

. At the conclusion of the hear ing, the trial court fo u n d t h at the S tate had not proven the technica l violations rela ted t o fee s, fines, and community ser v i ce re s t i tution hours, but it did deter mine that Appellant had violated multipl e terms and conditions of co m m unity supervision as alleg ed in the State’s third amende d motion to revoke

. The court ref ormed the orig in al t wo-y ear sentenc e and assessed punishment at 500 day s in the state jail division. This appea l follows.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
I n a probation revoc ation hear ing, the State must establish by a p re pondera nce of the evidenc e that the defe ndant violated a condition of his probation. Cobb v. State , 851 S.W .2d 871,
873 (Tex.Crim.App. 1993). The trial court is the sole trier of the fac ts and the cre dibilit y of the wi tnesses. See Jack

son v. State , 915 S.W .2d 104, 105 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1996, no pet.). Consequently , appellate revie w of a probation revoc ation order is limit ed to a deter m i n ation of whether the trial court abused its discretion. Ricke ls v. State , 202 S.W .3d 759, 763 (Tex.Crim.App. 2006). I n deter m i n i n g that issue, we view the evidenc e prese nted at the hear ing in the light most favor able to the trial court’s finding

. Jones v. State , 589 S.W .2d 419, 420 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979)

. When the State has sustained its burden of proving the alleg ation by a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e and no proce dura l obstacle is raised, the decision t o revoke probation l ies within the di scre tion of the trial court. Flournoy v. State , 589 S.W .2d 705, 707 (Tex.Crim.App. 1979) ; Gordon v. State , 4
S.W .3d 32, 35 (Tex.App.--El Paso 1999, no pet.). Under such circ umsta n ces, the trial court’sdiscretion is substantially absolute. Flournoy , 589 S.W .2d at 708; Gordon, 4 S.W .3d at 35. Thus,

the only question prese nted on appea l is whether the trial cou rt ab u s ed i ts discretion in revoking probation. Garrett v. State , 619 S.W .2d 172, 174 (Tex.Crim.App. 1981); Gordon , 4 S.W .3d at 35.
I f a sing le g round for revoc ation is suppor ted by a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e and is other wise valid, then an abuse of discretion is not shown. Sanchez v. Sta t e , 6 0 3 S

. W.2d 869, 871 (Tex.Crim.App. 1980); Gordon , 4 S.W .3d at 35. To preva il, an appellant must succe ssfully challeng e all the finding s that support the revoc ation order

. See Jo n es v. State , 571 S.W .2d 191,
193-94 (Tex.Crim.App. [P anel Op.] 1978); Harris v. State , 160 S.W .3d 621, 626 (Tex.App.--Waco 2005, pet. stricken)

. NO ABUSE OF DISCRETION Appellant prese nts three points of err or rela ted to the admissibili t y of evidenc e during the

revoc ation hear ing. I

n Point of Error One , he conte nds that the trial cour t abused it s discretion by admitting business rec ords from the I llinois State Police rela ted to Appellant’s arr est for multipl e

o ffenses on J une 27, 2007, and business rec ords of the J eff Davis County Sheriff’ s Dep ar t m en t rela ted to his arr est on September 15, 2007 for driving while intox icated and cer tain traff ic offe nses. I n Point of Error Two, Appellant complains that the combined eff ect of the err oneous admission of the business rec ords and the court’s err oneous deter mination that Ap p ell ant committed other community supervision violations aff ecte d his substantial rig hts. I n Point of Error Three , Appellant

m ai n t ai n s that the court abused its discretion by admitting business rec ords from the Big Be n d Reg ional Medica l Center to prove Appellant tested positive for both marihuan a an d coca ine on September 15, 2007.
We have revie wed the alleg ations found true by the trial court and have deter mined that some of these violations wer e proven by live testimony and not throug h the business rec ords. Appellant’scounsel concede d at o ra l arg ument that the S tate proved three “re latively minor” vi olations of t he

terms and conditions of probation. Assuming without deciding that the trial court err ed in admitting 3
the business and medical rec ords, we cannot conclu d e it a b u s e d its discretion in revoking Appellant’s probation if the evidenc e supporting these other violations is sufficie nt. See Sanchez , 603 S.W .2d

at 871 (there is no abuse of discretion in revoc ation of community supervision if a single g round is supported by a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e and is otherwise valid); Gordon , 4 S.W

. 3 d at 35 (same)

. Conditi on 2 prohibited Appellant from committing any offe nse ag ainst the laws of the state of Texas or any other state or the United States. The State’s third amende d motion to revoke alleg ed that on or about September 15, 2007 in J eff Davis County , Texas, Appellant committed the offe nse

o f driving a motor vehicle on a public roadw ay with an expired reg istration and the o ff en s e o f d riving a motor vehicle with an invalid license. The trial court found both alleg ations tr u e. Ap pellant testified that he had an acc ident with a bicy clist on September 15, 2007 in J eff Davis County , T ex as but he claimed that the bi cy clist ran into his truck. He denied being int ox icated at the time. Neve rtheless, he admitted that his driver’ s license was invalid and that the reg istration had expired on the vehicle he was driving

. These admissions are sufficie nt to prove that he committed

t h e o ffenses alleg ed. See T E X .T R A N S P .C O D E AN N
. § 502.404 (Ve rnon Supp. 2009)(pr ohibiti n g
opera tion of motor vehicle without reg istration insignia) ; T E X .T R A N S P .C O D E AN N
. § 521.021 (Ve rnon 2007)(pr ohibiting opera tion of motor vehicle without driver’ s license) ; T E X .T R A N S P .C O D E AN N . § 521.457 (Ve rnon Supp. 2009)(e lements of driving while license invalid). Conditi on 3 require d Appellant t o av o i d i n jurious or vicious habits including the use of

A t o r a l a r g u m e n t , c o u n s e l c o n c e d e d t h a t t h e S t a t e o f f e r e d s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o p r o v e A p p e l l a n t c o m m i t t e d 3 t h e o f f e n s e o f d r i v i n g w i t h a n i n v a l i d l i c e n s e , A p p e l l a n t c o n s u m e d b e e r i n B r e w s t e r C o u n t y , T e x a s , a n d A p p e l l a n t w e n t t o I l l i n o i s w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n o f h i s c o m m u n i t y s u p e r v i s i o n o f f i c e r .alcoholic bever ag es, to abstain fro m t h e u s e of intox icating liquor, and to stay awa y from place s wher e liquor is sold or distributed, except bona fide eating es t ab l ishments. Parag raph (d) of the motion to revoke alleg ed Appe llant violated Conditi on 3 by consuming alcohol in Har ry ’s Tinaja,

a place wher e alcoholic bever ag es are sold, on Dec ember 15, 2007 in Alp i n e, Br ewster County , Texas. Katy O’B rien is an intensive supervision office r employ ed with the corr ections depar tment in Alpine. She beg an supervising Appellant in the latter part of November 2007 when his case was transfe rre d to her from Pecos County

. O’B rien testified she saw Appellant drinking a beer at Har ry ’s Tinaja in Alpine. She initially testified he was drinking the beer , but on cross-e x amination O’B rien admitted she di d not actua lly see Appellant drink from the beer bottle he was h o l d i n g. Ap pellant denied drinking beer on that occa sion. Although the evidenc e was contra dictory , the trial court could have f ound that Appellant violated Condition 3 by drinking a bee r. Conditi on 8 prohibited Appellant from voluntarily chang ing his place of residenc e without the permission of the supervising office r. I t also require d Appellant to repor t any chang e of addre ss
to his supervising office r within forty -eig ht hours. Conditi on 9 require d Appellant to rema in within Pecos County

unless g iven per

mission t o leave by

the cour t or by the supervising office r. Cry stal Galvan is an i ntensive supervision office r with the Permian Ba sin Communi ty Supervision and Correc tions Depa rtment in Ft. Sto ck t o n , T exas. She supervised Appellant from
Fe bruar y 20, 2007 until the latter part of November 2007. Be tween Marc h and Aug ust of that y ear , Galvan did not know wher e Appellant was living and the corr espondenc e she sent to the addre ss on file was returne d. Appellant did not repor t his addre ss chang e to her. Galvan spoke with Appellant by telephone and when she aske d wh er e h e wa s living, he replied that he had no phy sical address beca use he was homeles s an d l i v i ng out of his vehicle underne ath a bridg e. The community supervision depar

tment attempted to transfe r Appellant’s probation to Kenda ll County but he failedto keep his intake appointment. Consequently , Galvan continued to supervise Appellant. She

lear ned that Appellant had left Pecos County and the state of Texas on J une 27, 2007 when he was

arr ested in I llinois and that he ha d been in Jeff Da vis County , Texas in September 2007. Katy O’B rien also rela

ted during her testimony that she had intervi ew ed Ap p ellant at the
reque st of Cry stal Galvan on Se p t em b er 1 8 , 2007 in the Presidio County J ail. Appellant told
O’B rien that he had been arr ested in J eff Davis County and he was living on Hig hway 158 at an RV park in Alpine. O ’B rien did not believe any one had g iven him permission to li ve in Alpine. Appellant testified that at the time of the revoc ation hear ing, he was living in Alpine, but he had been living in Tomball, Texas when he was place d on community supervision. He believed his community superv i s ion would be transfe rre d but none of the probation office rs to whom Galvan direc ted him ha d any

rec ord of the c ase be ing tr ansfe rre d. Appellant admitted talking to G alvan in April of 2007. When she asked wher e he was living, he told he r he was living in his Peterbilt by a bridg e in Comfort, Texas. He also admitted that he was in I llinois in J une 2007 but claimed he had told a probation office r named Christine that he wa s go i n g t o I llinois for work. Appellant denied telling Ga lvan on J une 29, 2007 that he did not have permission to leave the state. This evidenc e is su ff

i ci en t to prove by a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e that Appellant violated Condition 8 by chang ing his place of r esidenc e without the per mission of his s upervising office r and by failing to notify her of his addre ss change

. The evidence is also sufficie nt to prove that Appellant violated Conditi on 9 by being in the sta t e of I llinois on J une 27, 2007 without the permission of h i s supervising office r and by being in J eff Davis County on September 15, 2007 without permission.
Be cause the evidence is sufficie nt to prove these vi olations of C onditions 2, 3, 8, and 9 as alleg ed in the third ame nded motion to revoke and as found true by the trial cour

t, we per ceive noabuse of discretion in the revoc ation of community supervisi o n. I t is there fore unnece ssary to

addre ss the merits of the issues for revie w. We aff

irm the judg ment of the c ourt below.

Marc h 24, 2010 ANN CRAWFORD McCL URE, J ustice
Be fore McClure, J., R ivera , J ., and Salas-Me ndoza, J udg e Salas-Mendoza, Judge, sitting by assig nment (Do Not Publish)