11 -08 -00 22 2-CR. 1
11 -08 -00 22 3-CR. 2 Opinion filed July2, 20 09



### In The 

# Eleven th Court of Appeals

__________ 

### Nos . 11 -0 8- 00 22 2- CR & 11 -0 8- 00 22 3- CR

____ ____ COD Y A LLEN CO UC H, Ap pellant

V. STA TE OF TEX AS , A ppellee

On App eal from the 91st Distr ict Court
Eastland County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 21355 & 21358

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Cody Allen Couch ap peals fr om the revoc ation of his community supervision that he
rec eived in two ca ses: one for the offe nse of possession of a controlled substanc e and one for the 1 of fe ns e of tampe ri ngwi th p hy sic a l e vid e nc e . We a ff ir m. 2 The State so u gh t to revoke Couch’ s community supervision based upon his pre sence in a motel room in Stephe ns County in posse ssion of drugpara pherna lia with Ang ela Jemae Hinson, a person of disreputable c hara cter , in violation of the conditi ons of hi s community supervision. One condition of Couch’s community supervision was that he no t l ea v e P al o Pinto C ounty withoutJohn G . H ill , For m er Just ic e, Cour

t of A ppea ls , 2nd D is tri ct

of T ex as at For

t W orth, s itt ing by

a ss ig nm ent

. 3 2 wr itt e n p e rm iss ion . H e did no t ha ve pe rm iss ion

fr om h is c omm

un ity su pe rv isi on off ice r t o g o to Stephens County . Findingthe alleg ations contained in the State’s motion to revoke to be true, the trial court r evoked Couc h’s community supervision. Cou c h urg e s in

thr e e iss ue s th a t ( 1) the tr ia l c ourt a bu se d it s d isc re ti on in revo ki nghis community

supervision on the g round that he posse ssed drugpara phe r n a li a b e c a u s e th e evide nce that he did s o was lega lly and factually insufficient; (2) the trial cour t abused its discretion in re voking his com m u n i t y

supervision on the g round that he a ssociated with per sons of disreputable and ha rm fu l c ha ra c te r b e c a

us e the e vid e nc e that he did so a ft e r he wa s p la c e d o n p ro batio n w a s le g a lly and f ac t u al l y i n sufficie nt; and (3) the c ondition of his probation that he avoid any person of disreputable a

nd harmful chara cter , including, but not limited to, Ange la J emae Hinson, his fiancé e
and , a c c or din g to C ou c h, the mot he r of his c hil d, amou

nte d to an unc on sti tut ion a l r e str ic tio n o n h is fre edom of a ssociation. A trial cour

t’s order revokingcommunity

supervision should be aff irmed if appe llant does not challeng e all of the g rounds on which the c ourt revoke d community supervision. Mo or e v . S

tate , 605 S.W .2d 924, 926 (Tex. Crim. App. 1980). One g round upon which the trial court’ s revoc ation
wa s b a se d is tha

t Cou c h wa s in Ste ph e ns County wi tho ut wr itt e n p e rm iss ion fr om t he c omm un ity supervision depa

rtment. Couch pre sents no issue challeng ing this g round on which the trial court in part base d its revocation. Although Couch make s a broa d g ener al statement in his brief that the evidenc e is insufficient to show, by a preponde ranc e of the e vidence , that he committed any of the violations alleg ed by

the State, his assertion has no me rit as to this ground in tha t t he undisputed
e vid e nc e sh ow s th a t, a ft e r h e wa s p la c e d o n c omm un ity su pe rv isi on , he was in S te ph e ns County without written permission from t he communit y supervision depar tment. We need not addr ess the other issues pre sen t ed b y Couch bec ause one sufficie nt gr ound will support the trial court’s or der to revoke community

supervision. Id. Acc ording ly , we overr ule Couch’s three issues on appea l. The judg ments of the trial c ourt are aff irmed.

PER C URI AM J uly 2, 2009 Do not publish. SeeT EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2(b). Panel consists of: Wright, C.J ., M c C a l l , J. , an d

H i l l , J. 3