### NUMBER 13 - 1 1 - 00 656 - C R 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

CHAD EDWARD MORSE , Appellant,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 260 th District Court of Orange County, Texas

.


## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Vela

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Garza Appellant, Chad Edward Morse , appeals from the trial court’s revocation of his community supervision. See T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. A NN

. art. 42.12, § 23 (West Supp.
201 1 ). By one issue , appellant conten ds the evidence is insufficient to support the2

judgment. Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion, w e affirm. 1
I. B ACKGROUND On September 8, 2008 , pursuant to a plea bargain, appellant pleaded guilty to theft of property with a value of at least $1,500 but less than $20,000 , a state jail felony offense

. S ee T EX

. P ENAL C O DE A NN . § 31.03(a), (e)(4)(A) (West Supp. 2011 ). The trial
court accepted appellant’s guilty plea, adjudicated him guilty, sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment and assessed a $ 1,500 fine, suspended the prison sentence, and placed him on community supervision for f ive years. On March 18, 2011 , the State filed a motion to revoke appellant’s community supervision, alleging violation of five conditions of probation, to wit: failing to report to his probation officer on numerous occasions; failing to complete community service work as directed; failing to reimburse the Crime Victim’s Compensation Fund; and delinquen cy in probation fees and fine payments

. On June 21, 2011 , appellant pleaded “true” to each violation. After hearing evidence, the trial co urt found all of the State’s allegations “true,” revoked appellant’s community supervision, and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment , with credit for time served

.

II. S TANDARD OF R EVIEW AND A PPLICABLE L AW In a community supervision revocation hearing, the State need only prove its allegations by a preponderance of the evidence. Jones v. State , 112 S.W.3d 266, 268 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.); Herrera v. State , 951 S.W.2d 197, 199 (Tex. App.

— Cor pus Christi 1997, no pet.) (citing Cobb v. State , 851 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993)). This standard is met when the greater weight of the credible

1 This appeal was transferred from the Ninth Court of Appeals pursuant to a docket equalization order issued by the Texas Supreme Court. See T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 73.001 ( West 2005).3

evidence creates a reasonable belief that the defendant violated a condition of probation as the St ate alleged. In re B.C.C. , 187 S.W.3d 721, 724 (Tex. App.

— Tyler 2006, no pet.) (citing Cobb , 851 S.W.2d at 873); see also In re M.A.H ., No. 13

- 07

- 426

- CV, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 6864, at *3

– 4 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi Aug. 28, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.). App ellate review of an order revoking community supervision is limited to a determination of whether the court abused its discretion. Canseco v. State , 199 S.W.3d 437, 439 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, pet. ref’d). Proof of a single violation of a pr obation condition is sufficient to support the trial court ’ s decision to revoke probation. Id. The trial court is the trier of facts in a revocation proceeding and the sole judge of the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to the ir testimo ny. Id. We examine the record of the revocation proceeding in the light most favorable to the trial
court ’ s ruling. Id.
III. D ISCUSSION By his only issue, appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court’s decision to revoke his probation

. Although appellant pleaded
true to the S tate’s allegations, he argues there was “just cause” for the violations such that the trial court should have allowed him to remain on probation. Without citation to authority, he asks this C ourt to look to the “reasoning behind why” he did not report to his probation officer. Even if we were to accept appellant’s argument, his failure to report to his probation officer is only one of the violations alleged. Appella nt ple a d ed true to all of the violations. Because a single violation is sufficient to support a trial court’s decision to revoke, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion. See id.4

We overrule appellant’s sole issue

. IV. C ONCLUSION We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

________________________ DORI CONTRERAS GARZA Justice Do not p ublish. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b)
Delivered and filed the 1 9 th day of July , 201 2

.