Opinion filed April 16, 2015

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

____________

No. 11-13-00245-CR

____________

JUAN JOSE ACUNA, JR., Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 238th District Court

Midland County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CR36960

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The trial court found that Juan Jose Acuna, Jr. had violated his community 

supervision for burglary of a habitation. The trial court revoked Appellant’s 

community supervision, adjudicated Appellant guilty of burglary of a habitation, 

assessed punishment at confinement for five years with no fine, and sentenced 

Appellant accordingly. We affirm.
2

I. Background Information and Evidence at Revocation Hearing

Appellant received deferred adjudication for the first-degree felony offense 

of burglary of a habitation. The trial court placed Appellant on community 

supervision with the following terms, among others: (1) report each month to the 

community supervision officer; (2) pay the fees assessed against Appellant; 

(3) perform at least ten hours of community service monthly for a total of 320 

hours; and (4) remain in Midland County.

The State moved to proceed with an adjudication of guilt and to revoke 

Appellant’s community supervision after he violated the above terms. The State 

alleged that Appellant (1) did not report for six months; (2) failed to pay fines and 

fees; (3) failed to perform community service hours; and (4) moved from Midland 

County to Freeport, Texas, in Brazoria County without permission.

Appellant pleaded true to each allegation against him. Appellant 

subsequently testified that he forgot to report to his community supervision officer 

on three occasions and that he moved outside Midland County without permission. 

David Yrizarry, Appellant’s community supervision officer, testified that 

Appellant reported no community service hours.

II. Issues Presented

Appellant asserts (1) that the trial court violated his due process rights when 

it revoked his community supervision because the State presented no evidence that 

Appellant had the ability to pay his fees but intentionally failed to do so and 

(2) that the trial court abused its discretion when it revoked his community 

supervision and assessed punishment and sentenced him to confinement for five 

years.

III. Standard of Review

We review a trial court’s decision to revoke community supervision for an 

abuse of discretion. Rickels v. State, 202 S.W.3d 759, 763 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006). 
3

The State must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant 

committed a violation of the conditions of his community supervision. Id. at 763–

64; Cobb v. State, 851 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). If the State fails 

to meet its burden of proof, the trial court abuses its discretion if it revokes the 

community supervision. Cardona v. State, 665 S.W.2d 492, 493–94 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1984). At a revocation proceeding, the trial court is the sole judge of the 

credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony, and we 

review the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling. 

Garrett v. State, 619 S.W.2d 172, 174 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1981); 

Taylor v. State, 604 S.W.2d 175, 179 (Tex. Crim. App. [Panel Op.] 1980). Proof 

of one violation of the terms of community supervision is sufficient to revoke

community supervision. Sanchez v. State, 603 S.W.2d 869, 871 (Tex. Crim. App. 

[Panel Op.] 1980).

IV. Analysis

We will address Appellant’s second issue first because it is dispositive of his 

first issue. Appellant pleaded true to each allegation against him, and his 

community supervision officer testified that Appellant did not report any 

community service hours. This testimony is sufficient evidence that he violated his 

community supervision. In addition, the trial court assessed punishment and 

sentenced Appellant according to the minimum statutory guidelines; therefore, the 

trial court did not abuse its discretion when it revoked Appellant’s community 

supervision, assessed punishment, and sentenced him. See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN.

§§ 12.32(a), 30.02(d) (West 2011) (burglary of a habitation as charged in this case

is a first-degree felony punishable by confinement for life or for any term between 

five and ninety-nine years); Rickels, 202 S.W.3d at 763–64; Cardona, 665 S.W.2d 

at 493–94; Sanchez, 603 S.W.2d at 871. We overrule Appellant’s second issue.
4

Appellant argues that the trial court violated his due process rights when it 

revoked his community supervision because of his failure to pay fees. Sufficient 

evidence exists, however, to support at least one of the other three allegations 

against Appellant that were unrelated to his failure to pay fees. The trial court, 

therefore, did not abuse its discretion when it revoked Appellant’s community 

supervision. See Sanchez, 603 S.W.2d at 871. We overrule Appellant’s first issue.

Appellant also lists three other issues in the Argument Summary section of 

his brief. Appellant contends that the trial court should have granted him a 

continuance, that insufficient evidence established his alleged violations, and that 

“his punishment was unduly excessive and harsh.” Appellant does not cite to the 

record or any authority, nor does he present any argument addressing these issues 

in his brief. Appellant has, therefore, waived these issues. See TEX. R. APP. P.

38.1(i); Smith v. State, 907 S.W.2d 522, 532 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995).

V. This Court’s Ruling

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

MIKE WILLSON

JUSTICE

April 16, 2015

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.