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

NO. 03-0 7 -00 647 -CR

Da vid Ur ie ga s , A ppe lla nt

v . The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF WI LLIAM SO N COUNTY , 368TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 04- 1202 -K 368 , HO NORAB LE B URT CARNES , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
I n April 2005, appe llant Dav i d Urieg as wa s place d on defe rre d adjudication supervision afte r he ple aded guilty to a ssault w ith f amily violence, second offe nse. SeeTex. P enal C o d e An n . § 22.01(a) (1), ( b)(2) (West Supp. 2008). I n October 2007, following a hea

ring on the State’s motion to adjudicate, the district co u rt ad j u d ged appe llant guilty

and imposed a te n-y ear prison sentenc e. In his only point o f er ror, appellant contends that the evidenc e is insufficient to s up po rt

the c ourt ’s fi nd ingthat he vio late d h is s up e rv iso ry c on dit ion s. W e wi ll ov e rr ule thi s contention and a ffirm the c onviction.

Th e State ’s mot ion

to a dju dic a te a lle g e d th a t a pp e lla nt v iol a te d th e te rm s o f h is
su pe rv isi on by c omm itt ingfi ve dif

fe re nt a ssa

ult s and by fa ili ng to pay his su pe rv isi on and ur ina ly sis fee s for three m onths. Appellant pleade d true to the a lleg ed fa ilure to pay his fees, but he denied2

committing the assa

ults. The trial court f

ound all of the a lleg ations to be true. Appe llant contends that th e e vid e nc e is f

a c tua lly ins uf fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

the c ourt ’s fi nd ing s. The de cision to procee d to adjudication of guilt is revie wable in the same manne r as
a re vocation of “ordina

ry ” communit y supervision. Tex. Code Crim. P roc. A nn. art. 42.12, § 5(b) (West S u p p . 2 0 0 8). Althoug h appellant ha s stated his point of error as a c halleng e to the fa ctual sufficie ncy of t he evidence, he concedes in his brief that the factual sufficiency standard of revie w applicable to finding s of guilt does not apply to revoc ation case s. Se e Da v ila v . S tate , 173 S.W .3d 1 9 5 , 1 9 8 ( T e x. A p p . — C o r p u s C h r i s t i 2 0 0 5 , no pe t.) ; Al lbr igh t v . S tate , 13 S.W .3d 817, 818 (T e x. Ap p. —F or

t Wor th 2 00 0, pet . r e f’ d) . Ins te a d, we re vie w a de c isi on to r e vo ke c omm

un ity supervision, and by extension a decision to a djudicate, for an abuse of discretion. Car do na v . S tate , 665 S.W .2d 492, 493 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984) . I n this review, we consider the evidenc e pre sented at the hear ing in the light most favor able to the tria l court’s finding s. Ga rre tt v. Sta te , 619 S.W .2d 172, 1 7 4 ( T e x. C r i m . Ap p . 1 98 1) ; Ma un e yv . S tate , 107 S.W .3d 693, 695 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003, no pet.). An orde r re voking c ommunity supervision must be supported by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e. Cardona , 665 S.W .2d at 493. One ground for revoc ation, if proven, is suff icient to revoke a def

endant’ s community

supervision. Mo or e v . S

tate , 6 05 S.W. 2d

92 4, 92 6 ( Te x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 80 ). A ple a

of tr ue to a n a lle g e d v iol a tio n, sta

nd inga lon e , is su ff

ic ie nt t o s up po rt

a
revoc ation of super

vision on that ground. Mo se s v . S tate , 590 S.W .2d 469, 470 (Tex. Crim. App. 19 79 ); Atc his on v . S

tate , 124 S.W .3d 755, 758 n.4 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003, pet. ref ’d). Appellant contends that the State failed to pr ove by a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e that he wa s able to pay

the supervis i o n an d u ri naly sis fees. SeeTe x. Cod e Cr im. Pr oc . A nn . a rt
.3

42.12, § 21(c) (West Supp. 2008). Appellant’s plea of true r elieved t h e S t at e of this burden, h o we v er . Ha v i n g p l ea d ed t ru e t o t h e al l ege d n o np ay m en t o f fe es , ap p el l an tca n n o tn o w c h al l en ge the suffic iency

of the evidenc e to support the trial court’ s finding that the alleg ations were true. See Col e v . S tate , 578 S.W .2d 127, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979). We h ave a lso re vie we d th e e vid e nc e re g ardin g t he a lle g e d a ssa ult s. Mic he lle Her nandez, the complaina

nt in all five of the a ssaults, testified that appellant struc k, shoved, and choked he r on four occa sions in 2006 and once i n 2007. Photogra phs of Her

nandez taken a fter the la st a ssa ult we re int ro du c e d in

e vid ence. Hern and e z’s so n te sti fi e d to the inj ur ie s sh e re c e ive d in one of the 2006 assaults. I n his defense , appellant of fer ed the testimony

of seve ral witnesse s to the
e ff e c t th a t H e rn and e z ha d a ssa ult e d h im. Vi e wi ngthe e vid e nc e a t th e a dju dic a tio n h e ari ngin t h e l i g h tm o s tf

av o r a b l e t o t h e t r i a l c o u rt ’ s f i n d i n g s , w e c o n c l u d e t h a tt h e S t a t e p r o v e d b y a preponde ranc e of the evidenc e that appe llant assaulted He rnande z as alleg ed.

Th e tr ia l c ourt

ha s n ot b e e n s ho wn

to h a ve a bu se d it s d isc re tio n b y

pr oc e e din g to adjudication. The point of err or is overr uled, and the judg ment of convic tion is affirmed.

__________________________________________ W. Kenneth L aw, Chief Justice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces Pury ear and Pember

ton Affir med Filed: De cembe r 30, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh