### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN
NO. 03-04-00543- CR

Jus ti n Al le n Le e , A ppe lla nt

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF HAY S COUNTY , 22ND JUDICIAL DISTRI CT NO. CR-02- 430, HO NORAB LE SAM ROB ERTSON, JR., JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
On S ep t em b er

1 1 , 2 0 0 2 , J u s t i nAl l en L ee p l ea d e d g u i l t y t o b urgl ary

o f ab u i l d i n g. Te x. Pe n. Cod e Ann. § 30 .0 2( a ) (We st 20 04 ). Th e dis tr ic t c ourt se nte nc e d h im t o tw o y e ars in s tate jail. I mpositi on of sentenc e wa s suspended, however, and he was placed on probation for a pe riod of fi ve y e ars . Su

bje c t to the c on dit ion s o f h is s up e rv isi on , L e e wa s r e qu ir e d to pa y a fi ne and to make monthly

restitution and compensation pay ments to the Hay s County Communi ty

Supervision and Corre ctions Depa

rtment beg inning Oc tober 10, 2002. L ee was also required not to commit an offe nse ag ainst the laws of a ny state within the United States.2 I n Augu s t 2 0 04, following a hea ring on the motion to revoke L ee’ s probation, the district c ourt revoke d probation and imposed sentence afte r findingthat L ee f ailed to make se vera l
re qu ir e d mo nth ly

pa y me nts , a nd that he c omm itt e d th e su bsequ ent of

fe ns e of burg lary of a c oin operated machine . L ee c ontends that the evide nce pr esente d at his probation hear ing is insuffic ient to show that he vi olated the terms of his probation and that the evidenc e is insufficient to show that he committed the subseque nt offense
.

I n a proc eedingto revoke probation, the State has the burden of provinga violation of the terms and conditions of the probation by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e. Cob b v . S

tate , 851 S.W .2d 871, 874 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). The State mee ts this burden if the g re at er weight of
cre dible evidenc e cr eate s a re asonable belief that the defe ndant violated a c ondition of probation as alleged i n the motion to revoke. J e nk ins v . S tate , 740 S.W .2d 435, 437 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983); Sc am ar do v . S tate , 517 S.W .2d 293, 298 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974). T h e S t at e a s s er t s t h at L ee fa i l edt o m ak e s ev er al m o n th l y p ay m en t s : Oc t o b er

th ro u gh De c e mbe r 2 00 2; F e br

ua ry thr ou g h Apr il 10 , 2 00 3; a nd June thr ou g h Se pte mbe r 2 00 3. L e e c la ims that h e fa iled to make the pa y ments beca

use he w as inca

rce rate d. Howeve r, eve n duringmonths when he was not in jail, L ee did not make the re q u i re d p aym en ts. Accor ding to the te stimony of Osbeida Jaimes, L ee’ s supervision office r, L ee w as not incar cer ated in D ece mber 2002, but fa iled to make the r equire d pay

ment. J aimes also testified that L ee was not incar cer ated in April, J une, and July of 20 03 , a nd that he did n ot make any of the re qu ir e d p ay

me nts fo r t

ho se pa rt ic ula r m on ths
. J aimes’s testimony

is corrobor ated by L ee’ s handwr itten statement listi ng the dates he was in jail and by an off icial Hay s County

computer- g ener ated summary listi ng L ee’ s jail recor d.3 L e e c la ims that the State fa ile d to sh owthat he wa s c a pa ble of makin g the pa

y me nts and that, conse quently , there was no ba sis for the trial c ourt to determine that L ee c ould have made the pa y me nts but di d not. Ho we ve r, ina bil ity to pay is an a ff

ir mativ e de fe ns e that th e de fe nd ant m us t raise a nd prove by

a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e. Sta nfi e ld v . S tate , 7 1 8 S. W. 2 d

7 3 4 , 7 3 5 ( T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 86 ). L e e did no t r a ise the de fe ns e ; th e re fo re the State wa s n ot r e qu ir e d to pr ov e his ability to pay . See id. Our revie w of a revoc ation order is limited to de termining whether the tr i al court abused its discretion. Car do na v . S tate , 665 S.W .2d 492, 495 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984). We review the evidenc e pre sented at the hear ing in a light most favor able to the tria l court’s orde r. Garrett v. Sta te , 619 S.W .2d 172, 174 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981). I n this case, the w eig ht of cre dible evidenc e
cre ates a rea sonable be lief that L ee violate d a condition of his probation. See Cobb , 851 S.W .2d at 8 7 4
. T h e S t a t e m e ti t s b u r d e no f p r o v i n g L e e v i o l a t e d

th e c o n d i t i o n s o f

h i s p r o b a t i o nb y a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e. See J enkins , 740 S.W. 2d a t 43 7; Scamardo , 517 S.W .2d at 298. The
e vid e nc e e sta

bli sh e d th a t L e e wa s n ot i nc arc e rated duri ngthe months of De c e mbe r 2 00 2, Ap ri l, J une, and July

2003, and that he failed to make the require d pay ments for those months, in violation of t he conditions of hi s probation. A s ingle violation will s upport a re vocation of pr obation. Sanchez
v . S tate , 60 3 S.W. 2d 86 9, 87 1 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 80 ); J on es v . S tate , 5 7 1 S. W. 2 d

1 9 1 , 1 9 3
- 9 4 ( T e x. Crim. App. 1978). We need not de termine whe ther the e vidence is sufficient to esta b l ish that L ee violated another

condition by

committing the alleg ed subseque nt offense
. See Sanc hez , 603 S.W .2d
a t 87 1; Jones , 5 71 S.W. 2d a t 19 3- 94 . T he re fo re , we ho ld t hat th e dis tr ic t c ourt

did no t a bu se its discretion and w e af

firm the orde r re voking pr obation.4 Conclusion The district cour

t’s order is affirme d.

__________________________________________ Be a Ann Smith, J ustice Be fore J ustices B . A. Smith, P ury ear and Pember

ton Affir med Filed: June 23, 2005 Do No t Pu

bli sh